If this is going to be anything like last time, you may want to bring your riot gear. Tom Tancredo, former Colorado congressman and anti-illegal immigration crusader, will be speaking on the subject of “Is Western Civilization Worth Saving?”
If you’re one of those people that actually have to ask that question (or even if you’re not), I would highly recommend coming out. The event will take place in the Franklin Porter Graham Student Union auditorium at 7:00pm tomorrow (Monday). If you’re thinking about going, tickets must be picked up at the box office in advance.
As a security precaution, no bags will be allowed in the auditorium. Yes, SDS, this means you.
The facebook page is here. Hope to see you there!
This guy is a professional bigot with nothing interesting to say. Is there a point to inviting him to speak, other than pissing off decent people and making sure the man gets his wingnut welfare check?
Just like SDS and their ilk, you dismiss anything he has to say because you labeled him as a racist and a bigot. So much for your lofty "tolerance". You liberal halfwits only tolerate what you want to hear.
NJR, I can already hear __o_'s whiny response: "He said that Obama should go back to Kenya!" "He's a racist!" "He threatened to bomb Mecca!" "Whine, whine, whine!" "Moan, moan, moan!"
And, by the way, leftists, here's the full quote of what Tancredo said, according to CBS: "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?" You see, he was reacting to a ridiculous comment made by Obama's brilliant wife. Assuming Mrs. Obama actually said that (and I sure as hell wouldn't put it past her), then Mr. Tancredo's comment was completely understandable and, by it, he made an excellent point.
He opens his mouth and white supremacist bullshit comes out. I don't see anything wrong with dismissing that.
Ahhhh, but you said "nothing interesting to say. Is there a point to inviting him to speak". So, either he ONLY speaks in "white supremacist" language, or, as I said, you dismiss him as a person because he is a "racist". Either way your "tolerance" is laughably and expectantly missing.
Boy, if everyone on this blog followed the same standards, no one would ever acknowledge your existence. You're a liberal halfwit who clearly has no grasp of logic. You don't believe in God even when it is proven to you, and you also use ad hominem attacks whenever you professor-supplied arguments fail in the face of any scrutiny. In fact, why does everyone even talk to this guy? I honestly do it for laughs. You literally make me laugh, _o___. You are SO predicable that I could type out a script and you would follow exactly.
"You don't believe in God even when it is proven to you"
The rest of your weak trash-talking aside, this is hilarious and sad.
Back to Tancredo… seriously, what does he have to offer? Does he have any expertise in anything other than deploying inflammatory rhetoric as a means of separating racist rubes from their money?
I could care less what this draft-dodging political sideshow has to say. It's great he's found some ambitious young people to grant him access to university resources. Regardless, I'm going for the spectacle.
I sympathize, Danzo. The only reason I talk to leftists is for the entertainment it offers. I, similarly, couldn't care less what they think.
The "debate" over immigration is a good example of how our parties work together in concert to maintain the status quo. There are millions of illegals in the country, taking jobs and committing crimes. This is bad for the average citizen, but the businesses who fund the parties benefit greatly from not having to pay workers the minimum wage or maintain safety standards. Thus, the debate over this issue is constructed in such a way that no matter which of the opposing sides wins, the average citizen loses. In 2006, one side made a weak proposal, one which would have made slight, nominally positive adjustments to the situation. The other side complained about how bad said proposal was and succeeded in preventing its passage. I am skeptical that real immigration reform would be made even if Congress were made entirely up of Tom Tancredos.
I agree, for the most part. But Tom Tancredo has been a big critic of the Republican party and has advised it on numerous occasions to take a firm stance on immigration.
And although the odds of real immigration reform, or even just the odds that our current laws will be enforced, are low, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The current level of immigration is simply not sustainable. Eventually, it will reach a critical mass, at which point the nature of the U.S. will be fundamentally changed. We will be forced to do something about the situation, and when I say "we," I don't mean the current government, and I certainly don't mean any establishment party. When that day comes, the left will be proven wrong. We all will see that many, many, many of the immigrants whom we have welcomed do not have any desire to be a part of us, and they have no desire for us to become a part of them.
"We will be forced to do something about the situation, and when I say "we," I don't mean the current government, and I certainly don't mean any establishment party."
Why don't you say what you mean, then? Here's what I think you mean by "we": angry white people.
Well, to be fair, it's not just the "angry white people" that aren't happy with the overflow of illegal immigration. In 2007, a New American Media poll showed that 51% of African Americans felt that illegal aliens were taking away their houses, jobs, and political power and this was before our economy bottomed out completely. So, while it may be white Americans gain more notoriety and attention for challenging the problem of illegal aliens, it is not an issue that they solely have a problem with.
As someone who has had several family members lose jobs to illegal immigrants, I guess that it just strikes a little closer to home for me. I don't agree with how Tancredo goes about his business, I feel like some of his comments are just obnoxious, but illegal immigration is a problem.
"this is hilarious and sad."
Considering the fact that you never actually refuted (or even attempted for that matter) my argument, I'd say that you blinding pride is the saddest thing of all.
I don't know what Tancredo has to offer for you besides a different stance. Here's the thing about "inflammatory rhetoric." Anyone who comes out against illegal immigration is instantly labeled a racist and a bigot. So, at that point, ANYTHING that they say becomes inflammatory because it's seen as an attack on Mexicans. So, once again, you fail to acknowledge that any view that contradicts your sad and supplied view of the world is set aside.
From my point of view, you offer NOTHING when it comes to any given discussion. You either A. go straight for the ad hominem attack, or B. simple dismiss the argument as laughable. So, what do YOU have to offer? At least Tancredo can open his mouth without bashing the person he's arguing with. It's called a double standard by the way. Liberals are renowned for it.
"Considering the fact that you never actually refuted (or even attempted for that matter) my argument, I'd say that you blinding pride is the saddest thing of all."
Did you make a serious argument? Claiming to have "proven" with a logic game the existence of an invisible deity, while simultaneously decrying others "blinding pride" demonstrates a staggering lack of self-awareness.
"Anyone who comes out against illegal immigration is instantly labeled a racist and a bigot."
This is simply not true — it is possible to discuss immigration without resorting to racism and bigotry, yet that is the approach that Tancredo chooses to take. He chooses to associate with white supremacists, and he chooses the rhetoric that he uses because he knows that it speaks directly to the racists and bigots who support him, and he deserves to be called out for it.
I did make a serious argument that Panzo responded to and we went back in forth for quite a while. You, however, just said "LOL are u serious!1!!1? You're just too crazy!"
Here's what you fail to understand. I did not use a "trick" or "game" of logic. I used a fairly when known logical proof that you have obviously not studied. And because of that fact, you had no choice but to shrug it aside as a "trick of logic" (I love that by the way. Do you have any more examples of tricks of logic?)
If it was so ridiculous, prove it wrong. I take the time to respond to your "silly" responses, so return the favor. Humor a "crazy" person. Show how it is a trick, or a game and how it doesn't prove anything. Otherwise, your argument is simply "Nuh uh!"
Yes, you are correct. It is "possible" to discuss illegal immigration without resorting to racism. However, it is the liberals who immediately bring up the race card which simply clouds the issue. Possible, yes. Probable, no.
Yes Panzo, this is a generalization. But, would you care to point out what the problem is?
"It is "possible" to discuss illegal immigration without resorting to racism. However, it is the liberals who immediately bring up the race card which simply clouds the issue."
So if I understand you correctly here, you're saying that it's not racism which is the real problem, it's the people who say "that's racist" — that it is in fact worse to call someone racist than it is to actually be racist. I know this is a popular line of thinking among fans of our 21st century intellectual titans Limbaugh and Beck, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
My view, of course, is the complete opposite — it's demagogues like Tancredo, Steve Sailer, Russell Pearce, etc. and their armed and angry neoconfederate supporters whose bigotry "clouds the issue."
I highly doubt you've really paid attention to anything he says, so what would you know about what he has to offer? The fact that you think he is a white supremacist shows that you haven't ever really listened to him. So shut up.
I think it's ridiculous to say that liberals are the only ones that generalize, especially when you do it in the same posting. Fact is, anyone who says that immigration reform is "code for amnesty" is straw-manning the fuck out their opponent's position.
Also, how do you say this:
"From my point of view, you offer NOTHING when it comes to any given discussion. You either A. go straight for the ad hominem attack, or B. simple dismiss the argument as laughable."
right after saying this:
"In fact, why does anyone even talk to this guy? I honestly do it for laughs. You literally make me laugh, _o___."
You know, I searched for the word "generalize" and liberals and I didn't manage to find any combination of the two. I didn't say that liberals were the only ones, and I don't make the claim now.
"Also, how do you say this: "
Because he really doesn't offer anything in the context of the argument. An ad hominem attack is not a contribution. Neither is a claim like "Haha, you're so crazy that you not worth arguing against". I ought to just ignore him, but I cannot resist pointing out his logical fallacies and cop outs. But, to clarify, I don't count either of those as contributions to a discussion.
Please, enlighten us. Provide examples.
You must not be a student. I know UNC does some pretty stupid things, but admit you? That's pushing it. There are many liberals whose intellects I respect. I don't respect yours at all.
Literally, this is your argument: He's racist. He's a white supremacist. He's evil. He's bigoted. Have you ever had an original thought? Why don't you provide examples? I mean, you spend all this time typing out stupid responses, so you may as well get your money's worth and learn/gain something from it. I've challenged you to provide examples. You are yet even to ATTEMPT. You are so blind, apparently, that you can't see it: YOU HAVE NOT MADE AN ARGUMENT YET. YOU HAVE ONLY PROVIDED ACCUSATIONS.
Bringing race into the discussion of illegal immigration is what clouds the issue. You scream racism EVERY time. I am not against illegal immigration because I hate Mexicans. Far from it. But, ANY time I get into a discussion about it, I find that I am always defending myself from the accusations of racism. That's called clouding the issue.
Illegal immigration doesn't have to involve race. If you are an illegal immigrant, then you are subject to penalties that are set in place for illegals. That's it. But liberals cry out that we are racist because we are discriminating against Mexicans. Never mind the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, anything that punishes illegal immigration is hate laden bigotry.
I don't know anything about your opinions on immigration, but I do know a little bit about Tancredo's — and he supports racist policies and seems to enjoy deriving support from and associating himself with white supremacists. Like many public figures who have made immigrant-bashing a signature issue, he has said a lot of things that would lead an attentive person to believe that he is either extremely stupid or racist. I'm not screaming racism, he's doing a pretty good job of it himself. If you really want to have a rational discussion about immigration without any accusations of racism, then declaring your allegiance to people like TT is not going to help you.
There you go again, dumb***. Here's your logic: "He said that he doesn't think that the current government or any establishment party will ever address the immigration situation. Therefore, the ONLY OTHER PEOPLE he could possibly rely on are angry white people. And they have to be white. They have to be angry. They have to be racist."
You seriously must not be a math person. Any person with any ability to think logically can see that your I.Q. must be around 70.
Don't forget to give me my "thumbs-down." That's the mature thing to do when you've been shown to be stupid.
I did rather well in math, thank you, it's been a while since I took any math classes but I did place in a couple of statewide math contests when I was in high school. I took single and multivariable calculus when I was a freshman but then decided that instead of continuing to study physics I would pursue a lucrative career in taunting dummies like you.
You still haven't explained what you meant. It's true that many non-white people are unhappy with the current state of immigration, but there's a pretty simple reason why they aren't lining up behind Tancredo and his buddies in the militant anti-immigrant-border-patrol brigade. Anyone have any ideas about what that reason might be?
Where are all my pending comments?
I don't see why you feel a right to complain, since YWC's blog deletes comments all the time.
Because crdaily.com seems to have a policy of allowing anyone to comment regardless of his/her opinion. YWC apparently doesn't have that policy. I figured it was simply an error on their part and I wanted to remind them that I had stuff pending. But it's their website. They're more than welcome, of course, to make whatever policy regarding commenting that they want. YWC has nothing to do with what they choose to do.They could have responded by saying, "Hey, Riley, you're no longer welcome here," and I would have left without attempting to argue.
Trying to pick a fight, are we?
There we go! You just spew garbage like: "[H]e supports racist policies and seems to enjoy deriving support from and associating himself with white supremacists." Notice: No examples offered. And: "[H]e has said a lot of things that would lead an attentive person to believe that he is either extremely stupid or racist." Notice again: No examples offered.
You truly amaze me. I don't think you've presented ANYTHING but accusations so far. Do you have the ability to think rationally?
Where did I declare my allegiance to Tancredo? He does have some good points, but I don't agree with him on everything. You are the only person here who seems to have an all or nothing attitude. Anyways, until you provide sources that can easily be seen racist, your argument is hearsay.
You obviously don't know how to read between the lines, __o_. Do you know just how fed up people are with illegal immigration? They have been pushed and pushed to the point where the majority of people in Arizona support the newest and ludicrous law about arresting on suspicion of illegal status. The law is absolutely nuts because it requires, in theory, EVERYONE to carry around their birth certificate, or risk being detained until their immigration status can be verified. It is insane, but understandable. You don't live down here, so maybe you don't see it. People are fed up with the slums that illegals have created. They are fed up with the drugs and violence that the illegals have brought (Not all of them mind you). They are fed up with people living on the border being robbed and murderer by border jumpers. They are FED UP.
Riley's point is that unless the government does something to stop this problem, people will resort to more drastic measures. Sure, this time around they used the government as a means of stopping it. What makes you think that people won't take things into their own hands when the government fails? History tells us that people are more than willing to do so. What makes you think that things will be different this time?
And by the way, it isn't just whites who are for this law. Whites don't make up the 70% approval rating for the law. Your claims, unlike the claims that you've failed to provide for Tancredo, are undoubtedly racist. Racism goes both ways, especially since whites aren't the majority.
I don't have to explain what I mean, and I won't, simply to show you that I won't be given the third degree unless I choose to accept it.
Yeah, I'm the dummy. Calculators can crunch numbers, by the way. What they (and you) can't do, however, is make a logical argument.
Perhaps you're right, though. Maybe you are just trying to be a pain in the neck (but I wouldn't call it "taunting"…). Well played.
I agree, NJR, except on one point. As I understand the Arizona law, Arizonians won't have to carry around their birth certificates. According to Pat Buchanan's column:
"Before there can be a 'reasonable suspicion' an individual is here illegally, there must first be a 'lawful contact.' This means no cop can halt and challenge a man on the street, or sitting in a restaurant or bar, or driving a car.
"If an individual is caught running a traffic light, the police must first ask for his license. Only if the individual lacks a valid ID or driver's license, or his behavior causes 'reasonable suspicion' he is an illegal, can he be brought in. Then, a call must be made to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to determine his status."
It's quite possible, NJR, that you have a better understanding of the law, but I've not heard that everyone in Arizona basically has to carry their papers around. Here is an interesting video from CNN. Notice in the video that most (if not all) of the "controversy" surrounding the bill has to do with allegations that the bill is racist (which are obviously ridiculous). No one really seems to be complaining that the bill is cumbersome for all people in Arizona. Most people seem to be saying that determining legal status is as simple as a phone call. If you're without your ID, then you may have problems (you may be detained), but, in my opinion, that's perfectly reasonable, considering the circumstances, as you have already said.
The only problem with that is that ID's do not indicate immigration status. All that is required to get a driver's license is proof of residence, unless the laws have changed.
Let me use an example. Suppose I enter the country perfectly legally on a work visa. With that work visa, I am able to get a driver's license, and for all intents and purposes, I appear to be a citizen. However, once that work visa expires, I am not "required" to turn in my driver's license. So, even if I am pulled over and I have my driver's license, I may still be in the US illegally. Extreme situation, sure, but the loopholes are there.
Just to be clear, I am not disputing to law's idea. But, unless you require people to carry proof's of their immigration status (which this can eventually lead to), this law will be subject to so many lawsuits and problems that it will cause more problems then it will solve. The best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration. Excluding people like our friend __o_, most people see AZ's overwhelming support of this law as an indication that the situation has become intolerable,
If they really want to solve illegal immigration, they need to do two things. First, make it easier to become a citizen, and control their entry. Add benefits to becoming a citizen, and their won't be a need to swim the river. The controlling aspect will be requirements on speaking English, no crime records, established work and living space, etc…. They then need to punish those companies that pay illegals under the table, and reward those companies that hire them on and pay them through the payroll. Do this, and you will solve the PROBLEMS that illegal immigration brings.
The only problem with that is that ID's do not indicate immigration status. All that is required to get a driver's license is proof of residence, unless the laws have changed.
Let me use an example. Suppose I enter the country perfectly legally on a work visa. With that work visa, I am able to get a driver's license, and for all intents and purposes, I appear to be a citizen. However, once that work visa expires, I am not "required" to turn in my driver's license. So, even if I am pulled over and I have my driver's license, I may still be in the US illegally. Extreme situation, sure, but the loopholes are there.
Just to be clear, I am not disputing to law's idea. But, unless you require people to carry proof's of their immigration status (which this can eventually lead to), this law will be subject to so many lawsuits and problems that it will cause more problems then it will solve. The best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration. Excluding people like our friend __o_, most people see AZ's overwhelming support of this law as an indication that the situation has become intolerable,
If they really want to solve illegal immigration, they need to do two things. First, make it easier to become a citizen, and control their entry. Add benefits to becoming a citizen, and their won't be a need to swim the river. The controlling aspect will be requirements on speaking English, no crime records, established work and living space, etc…. They then need to punish those companies that pay illegals under the table, and reward those companies that hire them on and pay them through the payroll. Do this, and you will solve the PROBLEMS that illegal immigration brings.
The only problem with that is that ID's do not indicate immigration status. All that is required to get a driver's license is proof of residence, unless the laws have changed.
Let me use an example. Suppose I enter the country perfectly legally on a work visa. With that work visa, I am able to get a driver's license, and for all intents and purposes, I appear to be a citizen. However, once that work visa expires, I am not "required" to turn in my driver's license. So, even if I am pulled over and I have my driver's license, I may still be in the US illegally. Extreme situation, sure, but the loopholes are there.
Just to be clear, I am not disputing to law's idea. But, unless you require people to carry proof's of their immigration status (which this can eventually lead to), this law will be subject to so many lawsuits and problems that it will cause more problems then it will solve. The best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration. Excluding people like our friend __o_, most people see AZ's overwhelming support of this law as an indication that the situation has become intolerable,
If they really want to solve illegal immigration, they need to do two things. First, make it easier to become a citizen, and control their entry. Add benefits to becoming a citizen, and their won't be a need to swim the river. The controlling aspect will be requirements on speaking English, no crime records, established work and living space, etc…. They then need to punish those companies that pay illegals under the table, and reward those companies that hire them on and pay them through the payroll. Do this, and you will solve the PROBLEMS that illegal immigration brings.
Your argument certainly makes sense, and perhaps the example you provide could prove problematic, but I'm with you on your point that "[t]he best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration." With time, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to solve the practical problems associated with determining legal status. I'm in favor, for example, of a national ID card that tells a person's citizenship/legal alien status.
I will also say that illegal immigration, from a practical perspective, is not a problem because it's illegal but because of the problems that come with the illegal immigrants themselves. I am therefore hesitant to agree that we need to make it easier to become a citizen. See, part of the problem is that the hardships of not being a citizen of this country are not equally shared by all aliens, legal or illegal. Third World immigrants, for example, have a notoriously easy time in this country. They oftentimes get in-state tuition, welfare benefits, access to public education, and they can always have "anchor babies" that will ensure that they can remain indefinitely in the country. They also, by virtue of the fact that they are in this country, have dramatically increased their standard of living. This is not the case for, let's say, Europeans, Australians, the Japanese, or Canadians, whose standards of living are not dramatically better. In order for it to be worthwhile for a First World alien/immigrant to come to the U.S., they need to have come into a situation that is at least equal to the situation that they left. Admittedly, these people have to jump through all sorts of fiery hoops in order to stay in the U.S. while maintaining their (and their peers') standard of living.
I had a taste of this personally when I was in college. I looked into moving to the U.K. for a year after graduation to teach Latin because I had heard that there was a severe shortage of Latin teachers there. I quickly gave up on the idea because of all the complications I would have to endure. It simply wasn't worth it for me. Of course, assuming that the British value Latin in education, this is bad for them, because they have a shortage that I could have helped them fill. I wouldn't have been living on welfare, I wouldn't have been irrevocably changing their culture (nay, arguably I would have been helping them preserve it), and I wouldn't have been causing social unrest. Instead, they would rather import and pay for Third World immigrants who are doing nothing but their menial labor, irrevocably changing their culture, and causing all sorts of social tension.
The point is that not all immigrants are equally good additions to a country's well-being. Even immigrants who are not criminals are not necessarily good additions. We need to be sure that the immigrants whom we accept are beneficial to us. If they are not–and it doesn't matter how innocent they are–then we shouldn't accept them.
Your argument certainly makes sense, and perhaps the example you provide could prove problematic, but I'm with you on your point that "[t]he best part about this law is that people are now paying attention to illegal immigration." With time, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to solve the practical problems associated with determining legal status. I'm in favor, for example, of a national ID card that tells a person's citizenship/legal alien status.
I will also say that illegal immigration, from a practical perspective, is not a problem because it's illegal but because of the problems that come with the illegal immigrants themselves. I am therefore hesitant to agree that we need to make it easier to become a citizen. See, part of the problem is that the hardships of not being a citizen of this country are not equally shared by all aliens, legal or illegal. Third World immigrants, for example, have a notoriously easy time in this country. They oftentimes get in-state tuition, welfare benefits, access to public education, and they can always have "anchor babies" that will ensure that they can remain indefinitely in the country. They also, by virtue of the fact that they are in this country, have dramatically increased their standard of living. This is not the case for, let's say, Europeans, Australians, the Japanese, or Canadians, whose standards of living are not dramatically better. In order for it to be worthwhile for a First World alien/immigrant to come to the U.S., they need to have come into a situation that is at least equal to the situation that they left. Admittedly, these people have to jump through all sorts of fiery hoops in order to stay in the U.S. while maintaining their (and their peers') standard of living.
I had a taste of this personally when I was in college. I looked into moving to the U.K. for a year after graduation to teach Latin because I had heard that there was a severe shortage of Latin teachers there. I quickly gave up on the idea because of all the complications I would have to endure. It simply wasn't worth it for me. Of course, assuming that the British value Latin in education, this is bad for them, because they have a shortage that I could have helped them fill. I wouldn't have been living on welfare, I wouldn't have been irrevocably changing their culture (nay, arguably I would have been helping them preserve it), and I wouldn't have been causing social unrest. Instead, they would rather import and pay for Third World immigrants who are doing nothing but their menial labor, irrevocably changing their culture, and causing all sorts of social tension.
The point is that not all immigrants are equally good additions to a country's well-being. Even immigrants who are not criminals are not necessarily good additions. We need to be sure that the immigrants whom we accept are beneficial to us. If they are not–and it doesn't matter how innocent they are–then we shouldn't accept them.
I agree, NJR, except on one point. As I understand the Arizona law, Arizonians won't have to carry around their birth certificates. According to Pat Buchanan's column:
"Before there can be a 'reasonable suspicion' an individual is here illegally, there must first be a 'lawful contact.' This means no cop can halt and challenge a man on the street, or sitting in a restaurant or bar, or driving a car.
"If an individual is caught running a traffic light, the police must first ask for his license. Only if the individual lacks a valid ID or driver's license, or his behavior causes 'reasonable suspicion' he is an illegal, can he be brought in. Then, a call must be made to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to determine his status."
It's quite possible, NJR, that you have a better understanding of the law, but I've not heard that everyone in Arizona basically has to carry their papers around. Here is an interesting video from CNN. Notice in the video that most (if not all) of the "controversy" surrounding the bill has to do with allegations that the bill is racist (which are obviously ridiculous). No one really seems to be complaining that the bill is cumbersome for all people in Arizona. Most people seem to be saying that determining legal status is as simple as a phone call. If you're without your ID, then you may have problems (you may be detained), but, in my opinion, that's perfectly reasonable, considering the circumstances, as you have already said.
"the "controversy" surrounding the bill has to do with allegations that the bill is racist (which are obviously ridiculous)."
Why is that obviously ridiculous? The bill was drafted by a long-time advocate of racial profiling named Kris Kobach, who works for an organization that is funded by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund. AZ State Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the bill, is buddies with AZ neo-nazi J.T. Ready.
So, the bill itself isn't what makes the bill "racist", it's the drafters of the bill.
My God, you set new standards of stupidity every time you open your mouth.
The known racism of the bill's authors is obviously a factor in evaluating the racist intent and impact of the bill. If you're a racist AZ cop, you just got a green light to start (or to continue) harassing hispanic people. If you're hispanic, you just got served notice that AZ doesn't care much for your presence, whether or not you and your family are there legally. It's a hot mess that won't stand up to its inevitable court challenge.
The known racism of the bill's authors is obviously a factor in evaluating the racist intent and impact of the bill. If you're a racist AZ cop, you just got a green light to start (or to continue) harassing hispanic people. If you're hispanic, you just got served notice that AZ doesn't care much for your presence, whether or not you and your family are there legally. It's a hot mess that won't stand up to its inevitable court challenge.
The known racism of the bill's authors is obviously a factor in evaluating the racist intent and impact of the bill. If you're a racist AZ cop, you just got a green light to start (or to continue) harassing hispanic people. If you're hispanic, you just got served notice that AZ doesn't care much for your presence, whether or not you and your family are there legally. It's a hot mess that won't stand up to its inevitable court challenge.
You cannot be serious at this point. I am firmly convinced that you are simply spewing garbage because you get a perverse hard on when make dumb arguments.
Let me ask you this. If Obama himself drafted the bill, would it be racist? I guess not in your estimation. How can you be this stupid? Either the bill is racist, or it is not. That Kobach drafted it has no bearing on whether the bill itself is racist.
I'm done at this point. You aren't even arguing and your stupidity is so blatantly obvious that I don't even have to point it out.
You cannot be serious at this point. I am firmly convinced that you are simply spewing garbage because you get a perverse hard on when make dumb arguments.
Let me ask you this. If Obama himself drafted the bill, would it be racist? I guess not in your estimation. How can you be this stupid? Either the bill is racist, or it is not. That Kobach drafted it has no bearing on whether the bill itself is racist.
I'm done at this point. You aren't even arguing and your stupidity is so blatantly obvious that I don't even have to point it out.
"If Obama himself drafted the bill," but he didn't. What's your point? How about we call the bill "racisty" since it's just a piece of paper, it can't really be racist itself. We can, however, look at public information about the people behind the bill and the bill's likely impact and say that it's a crappy and unamerican piece of legislation, written by racists who are too dumb to anticipate that their actions are looking like a pretty big net loss for their state.
"If Obama himself drafted the bill," but he didn't. What's your point? How about we call the bill "racisty" since it's just a piece of paper, it can't really be racist itself. We can, however, look at public information about the people behind the bill and the bill's likely impact and say that it's a crappy and unamerican piece of legislation, written by racists who are too dumb to anticipate that their actions are looking like a pretty big net loss for their state.
So, the bill itself isn't what makes the bill "racist", it's the drafters of the bill.
My God, you set new standards of stupidity every time you open your mouth.
"Third World immigrants, for example, have a notoriously easy time in this country"
You sound jealous. I know the Heritage Foundation has been pushing this line but their case is weak. Legal immigrant welfare use fell dramatically after Clinton's "welfare reform" and illegal immigrants aren't eligible. Evidence indicates that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Good luck with your national ID card idea, I hear that some particularly tone-deaf Democrats are making that proposal as well.