SB1070 Immigration Bill passes in Arizona

[Faux]

You people are so naive its almost sad. Everyone racial profiles, and in a lot of cases it helps. You as a cop see a black man walking down the street at 1am in a predominantly white neighborhood dressed in dark clothes what are you going to do? Coincidence? Doesn't matter because you are still going to stop him. Same thing with a middle to upperclass white man in a known drug area at 12-1am. It does not make sense for him to be there. There is a problem with illegals in the US and if you can't see it your blind as a bat. The only way to combat it is to racially profile, one by one, and get them off our streets. Good on you Arizona, keep up the good work. Get these leeches off of us. Glad you have the balls to do it since the federal government won't.

 

The American Government has turned way to soft. Problem is no one wants to offend anyone and everyone wants to be politically correct. Screw that, wake up to the world.

what's sad is you think that's normal thought when it's pretty racist

 

also mexicans are just taking back what was theirs... california, texas

[Guthorm]

You as a cop see a black man walking down the street at 1am in a predominantly white neighborhood dressed in dark clothes what are you going to do? Coincidence?

 

If I am a cop and I see a white guy doing that, I would question him too.

[magekillr]

I'm sure the bill's sponsor isn't a racist, he's just trying to control the problem:

 

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/09/russell_pearces_willie_horton.php

[Arcantica]

People need to stop blaming the illegal immigrants themselves, and put more focus on the people who hire them.

 

 

After all they wouldn't be coming here if there wasn't any jobs to be had. You cannot understand where some of these people are coming from. I think every one of us here, would do the same if it meant possibly making a better life for our families. Anyone who wouldn't try taking risks to provide for their family isn't right in the head. Even if you have to break some laws.

 

 

Harsher punishments are needed for the people who get caught hiring them. That is the root of the whole problem.

 

 

 

 

I'm Native American, with a Spanish last name. I'll be damned if I'm going to have people come up to me and ask me to prove my citizenship.

[magekillr]

Gosh, I feel like I'm flooding this thread, but I just keep finding oodles of new goodies to show the supporters of this bill:

 

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/judge-napolitano-arizonas-new-immigr

 

Yeah yeah, crooks and liars is a liberal blog founded by John Amato. Look who they're citing, though: Judge Napolitano of Fox News. Expect an increase of violent crime after the passage of this bill. Just like with the drug war, police forces will be strained and forced to choose: go after people who are here illegally and possibly encounter many people who are here legally in the process, or go after actual crime (go after teenage pot smokers or actual violent criminals).

[The Dark Lord]

also mexicans are just taking back what was theirs... california, texas

 

 

That's not a very good justification, to be honest. History is filled with conquest, and the United States went to war against Mexico and conquered its northern territories. It's no different from what has happened in places such as Europe for the past 1000+ years.

 

 

They're only trying to take back what was theirs...

 

(And I'm not trying to advocate this kind of stuff, but it is very hypocritical to argue that it's "their" land while not caring about the conquests that have happened in Europe or any other part of the world over the past centuries. It's just as much as America's land now as it was Mexico's in the 1800s.)

[stonewall337]

I'm not going to support any anti-immigration laws until America or the states pass more anti-crime laws with their own people AND be more anti-drug.

 

You're complaining about illegals commiting crimes here when you got whites and blacks doing [cabbage] here. You complain about drugs when whites and blacks from America make up the majority of the drug buyers of this hemisphere.

 

Because it makes NO sense to try and enforce one law to a better degree until you can do the same for EVERYTHING. Ye. That doesn't make sense.

 

About time they did something more. We actually NEED racial profiling. Last time I checked it wasn't white Christians flying planes into towers, or bombing subways.

[Giordano]

I'm not going to support any anti-immigration laws until America or the states pass more anti-crime laws with their own people AND be more anti-drug.

 

You're complaining about illegals commiting crimes here when you got whites and blacks doing [cabbage] here. You complain about drugs when whites and blacks from America make up the majority of the drug buyers of this hemisphere.

 

Because it makes NO sense to try and enforce one law to a better degree until you can do the same for EVERYTHING. Ye. That doesn't make sense.

You missed my point. Go read the last few pages.

 

About time they did something more. We actually NEED racial profiling. Last time I checked it wasn't white Christians flying planes into towers, or bombing subways.

I would have to strongly disagree.

[Saru Inc]

Magekillr it basically reduces all your credibility at all when you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a racist, bigot, or xenophobe. That actually makes you a bigot, because you don't like the fact that we have different ideas. No one says that to you because you demean and belittle people all in the name of the badly dealt card hand you're playing.

 

Xenophobia-

a fear of foreigners or strangers

 

Racism-

Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.

 

Bigot-

bigot (a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own)

 

And as you said yourself, you're intolerant of intolerance. Thats still being a bigot babe, even if its a righteous one.

 

As a final note, have you ever noticed Magekillr, hon that you defend the rights of the immigrants, then stereotype all of "us" into one big group? Which is even worse, if only because of the irony.

Irony-

incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

 

 

btw I got called a racist on the phone today (I work in an answering service) only becuase I thought someone with a very heavy accent said there name was "raja" when it was "rahja" (not even kidding) so I guess you do have some valid points, broski.

[The Dark Lord]

Magekillr it basically reduces all your credibility at all when you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a racist, bigot, or xenophobe. That actually makes you a bigot, because you don't like the fact that we have different ideas. No one says that to you because you demean and belittle people all in the name of the badly dealt card hand you're playing.

 

Xenophobia-

a fear of foreigners or strangers

 

Racism-

Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.

 

Bigot-

bigot (a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own)

 

And as you said yourself, you're intolerant of intolerance. Thats still being a bigot babe, even if its a righteous one.

 

As a final note, have you ever noticed Magekillr, hon that you defend the rights of the immigrants, then stereotype all of "us" into one big group? Which is even worse, if only because of the irony.

Irony-

incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

 

 

btw I got called a racist on the phone today (I work in an answering service) only becuase I thought someone with a very heavy accent said there name was "raja" when it was "rahja" (not even kidding) so I guess you do have some valid points, broski.

 

Plus, you visit racist sites. White supremacist...

[stonewall337]

I'm not going to support any anti-immigration laws until America or the states pass more anti-crime laws with their own people AND be more anti-drug.

 

You're complaining about illegals commiting crimes here when you got whites and blacks doing [cabbage] here. You complain about drugs when whites and blacks from America make up the majority of the drug buyers of this hemisphere.

 

Because it makes NO sense to try and enforce one law to a better degree until you can do the same for EVERYTHING. Ye. That doesn't make sense.

You missed my point. Go read the last few pages.

 

About time they did something more. We actually NEED racial profiling. Last time I checked it wasn't white Christians flying planes into towers, or bombing subways.

I would have to strongly disagree.

 

 

I don't live in Ireland. Seeing as this was an AMERICAN bill, my main point was about AMERICA. I only mentioned subway bombings because IIRC there have been threats against US subway stations/systems. My point also wasn't that we need to check 90 year old middle easterners either. But there are warning signs. Treating everyone "equally" doesn't make sense when a clear cut danger from one group is so much more evident then others. Heck, if white supremacist were threating the Chicago transit system, I wouldn't think it strange that I, a younger white male, traveling alone with my laptop bag, would be given closer scrutiny then an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair. ( Yes, I know they don't have the same level of security and all, you get the point I hope.)

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

I'm not going to support any anti-immigration laws until America or the states pass more anti-crime laws with their own people AND be more anti-drug.

 

You're complaining about illegals commiting crimes here when you got whites and blacks doing [cabbage] here. You complain about drugs when whites and blacks from America make up the majority of the drug buyers of this hemisphere.

 

Because it makes NO sense to try and enforce one law to a better degree until you can do the same for EVERYTHING. Ye. That doesn't make sense.

 

About time they did something more. We actually NEED racial profiling. Last time I checked it wasn't white Christians flying planes into towers, or bombing subways.

 

wasn't the Oklahoma City Bombing done by Timmothy McVeigh and he definitely had accomplices but I think only one got charged. These guys were white, and christian. Oh and this wasnt even 20 yrs ago

[magekillr]

Magekillr it basically reduces all your credibility at all when you call everyone who doesn't agree with you a racist, bigot, or xenophobe.

 

Lol. It's not that you don't agree with me. How many times do I need to go over this with you? It's your language. If you're going to argue that Kreig isn't a racist, then you probably have the same racist leanings that he does.

 

That actually makes you a bigot, because you don't like the fact that we have different ideas.

 

Different ideas? You can have different ideas, lackey. It's how you express your "different ideas." The author of this bill has expressed support for white supremacy. Kreig has expressed support for racial profiling. It's consistently observed in academia that people who are "tough on crime"--something you profess to love--also have racist tendencies. The fact that you support this bill only builds support for that.

 

For example, many liberals are opposed to a loose immigration policy. Why? Because you can't let everyone in and simultaneously support a welfare state. That doesn't make them racist in their opposition. You, on the other hand, use different language. It's like a dog whistle.

 

No one says that to you because you demean and belittle people all in the name of the badly dealt card hand you're playing.

 

Oh noes! Stop demeaning me by calling a spade a spade!

 

^That is demeaning.

 

And as you said yourself, you're intolerant of intolerance. Thats still being a bigot babe, even if its a righteous one.

 

I'm sorry that I'm intolerant to your intolerance, babe, but that doesn't mean I'll erect racist laws preventing you from expressing yourself. You can be free to be a bigot all you want, but you will be shunned from society by people like me. That is the beauties of freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Anti-hate speech laws in Europe should be eradicated. They are abusive of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, and only keep the bigots underground, fomenting.

 

As a final note, have you ever noticed Magekillr, hon that you defend the rights of the immigrants, then stereotype all of "us" into one big group?

 

Who is "us" in this case? The racists versus the not-racists?

 

I thought it'd be easier to end on the note that even Tom Tancrendo, notable anti-immigrant (legal and illegal, by the way) believes this bill went too far to make my point, but apparently not.

[magekillr]

Oh, and also, I noted that liberals can be opposed to loose immigration because of their support for a welfare state, but that can be racist as well, depending on their language; especially if it were a country outside of the US, a country that is not very diverse. For example, the entire south used to be pretty liberal, except when it came to equality. With the signing of the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's, the Democrats basically gave up all of their southern support. This is why a lot of local regions in the south are dominated by Democrats, but you won't see very many on the national circuit. A lot of people in the south support the welfare state, but that changed when it meant that the minorities would have access. This is why most opposition to the welfare state is racist in its roots; terms like "welfare queen" have a racial connotation, and I'd suspect a person using that of being a racist. Same with constantly berating the "free loaders on welfare." When people say that, you can be rest assured that 90% of the time they're talking about people who are not white. It's why they're so hell bent against taxes. They see it as taking from white people, and giving it to minorities.

 

To prove my point:

 

[Saru Inc]

And who says I agree with Kreig? I actually don't, babe. And I never said be tough on crime I said *ahem*

 

"

Nah I would prefer criminalphobic?"

 

Which while I can understand how that can be misconstrued, the sheer magnitude of your attack on those deemed racist by you alone, simply shows that you're probably a racist.

 

GO ON SAY IT. CALL THEM WETBACK MEXICAN BEANERS. Oh wait, you already did.

[Giordano]

And who says I agree with Kreig? I actually don't, babe. And I never said be tough on crime I said *ahem*

 

"

Nah I would prefer criminalphobic?"

 

Which while I can understand how that can be misconstrued, the sheer magnitude of your attack on those deemed racist by you alone, simply shows that you're probably a racist.

 

GO ON SAY IT. CALL THEM WETBACK MEXICAN BEANERS. Oh wait, you already did.

You didn't made any improvement of proving your point there. "You're mad." "No you're mad."

 

Doesn't work like that.

 

Besides, words =/= racism. It's attitude and actions you take that makes you a racist.

[magekillr]

Yep, I did, and I edited that out because I've been yelled at by the mods before for flaming. I edited it out so they wouldn't delete the entire post like they have in the past. If they didn't delete posts, I'd have gladly left it right there.

 

Let's count the people who I've accused of being a racist and/or holding racist tendencies in this thread, shall we?

 

You.

Kreig.

 

That's it. When you said I "accused everyone who disagreed with me of being a racist/xenophobe/bigot," who else am I supposed to assume that you're talking about, lovey?

[The Dark Lord]

This is why most opposition to the welfare state is racist in its roots; terms like "welfare queen" have a racial connotation, and I'd suspect a person using that of being a racist.

 

I honestly don't see how that is racist, considering that I have not heard of "queen" being used as a racist term. On the contrary, I've seen it used in order to ridicule homosexuals, but that isn't racism, my friend.

 

As for the welfare state argument, the main thing that bothers me about such a system is that it makes individuals too dependent on the government. By giving people money during times of need (which isn't a bad thing), you consequentially strip them of their self-reliance.

 

As per my views concerning immigration (seeing as I never clarified) I believe that there should be quotas placed on immigration because we cannot just let everyone in. We already have troubles with consuming more than we produce, so we are a lot more reliant on imports in order to sustain our country.

 

I have only made my previous comments concerning the Arizona legislation because they were taking matters into their own hands instead of letting the Fed dictate everything to them; I believe that the Federal government should be less powerful and that states should be allowed to make more decisions. On the other hand, I do not support the methods by which they are trying to control immigration.

 

Lastly, how do you define 'Liberal'? (I am referring to your comment about Southern Democrats.) Please forgive me, but I tend to look at Enlightenment thought as true Liberalism, so maybe that's the reason why I'm confused.

[magekillr]

This is why most opposition to the welfare state is racist in its roots; terms like "welfare queen" have a racial connotation, and I'd suspect a person using that of being a racist.

 

I honestly don't see how that is racist, considering that I have not heard of "queen" being used as a racist term. On the contrary, I've seen it used in order to ridicule homosexuals, but that isn't racism, my friend.

 

How much have you read about the Civil Rights Movement? Or the establishment of the welfare state, what little there is, in America? I can understand why you wouldn't see that being racist on its face, but it is. Why did you take away the "welfare" part of the phrase, Serephurus? That's 75% of the meaning behind it. Queen represents woman, and welfare means black. This is a common term used among racist people accusing black women of overpopulating welfare while they're buying t-bone steaks and driving Cadillacs. It was especially popularized during the late 1970's and most of the Reagan-era.

 

Read up:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#Gendered_and_racial_stereotypes

 

As for the welfare state argument, the main thing that bothers me about such a system is that it makes individuals too dependent on the government. By giving people money during times of need (which isn't a bad thing), you consequentially strip them of their self-reliance.

 

It depends what you mean about self-reliance. Education and health care should absolutely be provided for in this country, and it's a tragedy that they're not not. Providing everyone with the means to a solid education has been proven to increase the state's GDP, reduces crime (outside of business criminals, that is), improves health, lowers teen pregnancy, etc. The "goods" are absolutely endless. Providing everyone with health care through state control of pricing has been shown to be the only way to keep health care costs down. If you think it's someone's fault that they can't afford the ridiculous costs of health care in this country, and you want them to be self-reliant...well, I'd say maybe you just haven't dealt with the evils of our health care system yet and can't truly empathize. One reason, I think, for these increased costs is due to the increased cost of medical school, which thusly takes out the number of doctors in our system (decreasing supply) and forces them to over-charge to compensate. Again, that problem would be solved with free (or inexpensive) education. My mate isn't even a citizen of Spain but paid like 500 euros for his master's per semester.

 

There are honest and non-racial oppositions to the welfare state; some people are against it on principle alone even if they admit that it works best for income equality. However, the opposition to it is rooted in racism. The other being, well, blaming the poor. That's ridiculous on its face because poverty is cyclical. It's a lack of empathy, really.

 

"Racial fragmentation and the disproportionate representation of ethnic minorities among the poor played a major role in limiting redistribution.... Our bottom line is that Americans redistribute less than Europeans for three reasons: because the majority of Americans believe that redistribution favors racial minorities, because Americans believe that they live in an open and fair society, and that if someone is poor it is his or her own fault, and because the political system is geared toward preventing redistribution. In fact the political system is likely to be endogenous to these basic American beliefs."

 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Glazer.pdf

 

And if you don't think that this study has any merit, just look at the polling about Obama. Most people think he's just helping the poor or minorities, and isn't caring enough about the white middle class. It's sad, but it's a true reality. People who gloss over this are naive, or are doing it on purpose and refuse to come to terms with it; others are understandably ignorant, but I would expect them to understand once they're shown the connotations many words and phrases carry.

 

As per my views concerning immigration (seeing as I never clarified) I believe that there should be quotas placed on immigration because we cannot just let everyone in.

 

I completely agree with you. We cannot let everyone and anyone in, especially because I believe in free universal education and health care. This would be a huge burden on the state, and it would be impossible to let everyone and anyone in. However, we need to provide paths to citizenship for people who are already here. They're not going anywhere, and if you deport them, they will be right back. A border fence is a ridiculous idea. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but it's been voted on in Congress as a way to make it harder to get in. It would just waste money and resources.

 

We already have troubles with consuming more than we produce, so we are a lot more reliant on imports in order to sustain our country.

 

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you want to improve this, you should support a weakened dollar. The reason we import so much more is because the dollar is overvalued, giving us a lot of purchasing power. Decreasing the value of the dollar would reduce the cost of our exports, create millions of jobs, and reduce our massive trade deficit (something that exploded because of St. Ronnie Reagan). Of course it would be foolish to argue that we should do this on purpose, it should be done with natural means. I welcome China to flood the market with everything they've bought up. It would be great for our economy.

 

I have only made my previous comments concerning the Arizona legislation because they were taking matters into their own hands instead of letting the Fed dictate everything to them; I believe that the Federal government should be less powerful and that states should be allowed to make more decisions.

 

Depends on the issue for me. This is an honest disagreement. I do not think a lot of the states can handle many of the issues that people think that they can. This is why a lot of our regulations in this country are useless and stifle competition. They're simply not enforced in the conservative states, or in corrupt states the regulators are bought off. This is far harder to do on the federal level, which is why I don't really support many regulations/issues being taken up by the states.

 

On the other hand, I do not support the methods by which they are trying to control immigration.

 

Glad to hear it. It's not enough to say "well something has to be done so that's why I support this!" No. You do it right, or you push it in the right direction to follow up later (which is how I felt about the health care bill. horrible legislation, but it established that health care is a right...which is in the right direction).

 

Lastly, how do you define 'Liberal'? (I am referring to your comment about Southern Democrats.) Please forgive me, but I tend to look at Enlightenment thought as true Liberalism, so maybe that's the reason why I'm confused.

 

Yeah, these references are awful, aren't they? In Europe a liberal is a libertarian, thus you have the Liberal Democrats (libertarians merged with social democrats).

 

In this context, I mean economically liberal, on par with someone like FDR. I mean supporting economic equality, raising taxes on the richer to help the poor out, programs to get the poor educated. This is why southern populism works well. Bill Halter is scaring the hell out of the Republicans in Arkansas for this very reason. He's coming out swinging, and if he wins his primary against Lincoln, it's game over. The Republicans have no chance against a southern populist. The south used to be liberal in the sense that there was a lot of class warfare; the populist southern white workers against their corporate overlords. You will see that almost immediately the backlash formed against the anti-poverty programs when Civil Rights legislation passed in the '60's despite the fact that, contrary to myth, they worked quite well and actually lifted a lot of people out of poverty, black and white alike. It's why certain people made the assumption that the poor and black in New Orleans during Katrina were all on welfare rather than the truth, which is that many of them are members of the urban working poor.

[Saru Inc]

And who says I agree with Kreig? I actually don't, babe. And I never said be tough on crime I said *ahem*

 

"

Nah I would prefer criminalphobic?"

 

Which while I can understand how that can be misconstrued, the sheer magnitude of your attack on those deemed racist by you alone, simply shows that you're probably a racist.

 

GO ON SAY IT. CALL THEM WETBACK MEXICAN BEANERS. Oh wait, you already did.

You didn't made any improvement of proving your point there. "You're mad." "No you're mad."

 

Doesn't work like that.

 

Besides, words =/= racism. It's attitude and actions you take that makes you a racist.

 

I'm aware.

 

Yep, I did, and I edited that out because I've been yelled at by the mods before for flaming. I edited it out so they wouldn't delete the entire post like they have in the past. If they didn't delete posts, I'd have gladly left it right there.

 

Let's count the people who I've accused of being a racist and/or holding racist tendencies in this thread, shall we?

 

You.

Kreig.

 

That's it. When you said I "accused everyone who disagreed with me of being a racist/xenophobe/bigot," who else am I supposed to assume that you're talking about, lovey?

 

 

Lets see the post that started it all:

 

"

 

Life's tough, get over it. And if you got in here illegally, you have no right to be in here. So get the [bleep] out and try again.

 

"

 

I am against illegal immigration, thats it. Now, based on that sentence, define me as a racist. You can't. Because even if I act like a "self righteous xenophobic racist religious bigot [wagon] hole" you still have no idea who I am. While it's true the internet form of me may be a more purer form of my self identity, thanks to anonymity of the internet you really have no idea what my character is, so can you still define racist intentions? Possibly so, but it's really not a good practice. Another reason why I you can't really call me racist is I never said *which* particular race I was against...? If you're a polish-scottish-french canadian like myself, you get in here illegally? Get out. Maybe thats why you called me a xenophobe, which I guess does make more sense. Except for the fact that after 2.5 pages of my posts, you've pulled apart my core values as a human being. props kid. And what if I was trolling? What if it was all Sarcasm? Don't make such superficial character assasinations against people Magekillr, it's not good for the soul.

 

Also, my great grandma was a holocaust survivor and a immigrant from Poland, I don't have a problem with immigrants obviously, since I basically am one.

 

 

edit: at the risk of sounding corny and even approval-whorish I celebrate diversity day at my school >.>

[The Dark Lord]

(I'm not trying to ignore most of your post; I am literally heading off to bed right as I type this.)

 

Concerning the first part, I meant that I believed that you were using 'racism' too broadly, which, by definition, is basically the belief that one's race is superior to another's. Since "queen" is used as a slur against a [male] homosexual, it was a fair assumption.

 

In this context, I mean economically liberal, on par with someone like FDR.

 

Of course, again, I consider a laissez-faire economy to be true economic liberalism. It doesn't mean that I agree with a completely free market, however.

 

I'm not sure what the modern term would be for someone who is a classical Liberal (I believe it is 'libertarian'?) but I believe that is what I would best be described as.

 

 

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Good night, everyone.

[magekillr]

Life's tough, get over it. And if you got in here illegally, you have no right to be in here. So get the [bleep] out and try again. I am against illegal immigration, thats it. Now, based on that sentence, define me as a racist. You can't.

 

You're asking me to take away the entire context of the debate, Saruman. Of course you can't say that what you said is racist without any context. On its face without any context, "welfare queen," "thug," "boy," "uppity," etc are ALL racially neutral words. However, people who have been exposed to racism and know it when they hear it, know that welfare queen is a pejorative that has racial and sexual connotations; the user is trying to paint the only people on welfare as black women, thus this is why we should end it. It's not really about "lazy people who refuse to work," although that phrase also has racial connotations in most cases.

 

The word thug is constantly used when describing criminal black people; very rarely is it EVER used to describe white people. Limbaugh has referred to Barack Obama as "a Chicago thug," and he knows exactly what he is doing. He's putting a picture into his white listeners' minds about a scary black man who is a criminal.

 

The word boy, not racist, right? This depends on the context. When a white person calls a black person "boy" in a condescending fashion, they are most certainly being racist. Why? You don't call a black man a "boy," unless you're intending to harken back to the racist language of slavery, and then segregation, when all black men were called "boy" as a prejudiced pejorative. Rep. Geoff Davis said this about Barack Obama:

 

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

 

That phrase is racist, and anyone who understands the context would know that.

 

Uppity. Again, not racist, right? Again, look at the context. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland said this about Barack Obama:

 

"Just from what little Ive seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity."

 

Uppity is this sense is racist because the user is saying, "how dare those black people! Who do they think they are, having wealth and being educated? They should know their place." That's what I read when I read Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's statement, and that's what 99% of black people would read as well.

 

So you're asking me to remove the entire context from your language, Saruman, which is not possible. When I read people yelling about illegals and how they're ruining the country, I read that as "those Mexicans are taking our jobs, taking away our [white] culture, and should get out so that REAL AMERICA can flourish."

 

That's another one of those racially connotative phrases that Sarah Palin loves to use. "Real America." They're of course speaking about rural towns that vote 75% Republican who haven't seen a person of color in a decade. That's what they mean when they say "real American." They're not talking about citizens, they're talking about anyone who isn't of color.

 

Because even if I act like a "self righteous xenophobic racist religious bigot [wagon] hole" you still have no idea who I am. While it's true the internet form of me may be a more purer form of my self identity, thanks to anonymity of the internet you really have no idea what my character is, so can you still define racist intentions?

 

No, I don't. Frankly I have no idea who Rep. Westmoreland is, nor who Rep. Davis is, but you can be rest assured that I do know that they hold such racist views that they're daring enough to use code words in public; they use code specifically to get around the radar of people who don't know the connotations of the words like Seph (and I'm not saying that's her fault).

 

I also don't know Kreig personally, but once again, based on the language he used here, my supposed "assumptions" rang true later on in the thread when he exposed how he really feels. Like Shadow said, the really sad part is that he doesn't think he holds racist views. Same with the GOP. They can claim they're not just a racist party of old white men, but sometimes they just cannot help themselves and are much more open about it. This is why you have the passing of this bill. The national party knows that this bill is going to kill their long-term electoral future, but then again the GOP never does have any foresight for their actions. They never think about the repercussions of their actions, just knee-jerk reactionary legislation. Lindsey Graham knows it, and that's why he's pissed off at Harry Reid for moving it ahead of climate change legislation. He knows that in an election year that the GOP will NOT be able to contain themselves, and he would rather do it in 2011, an off-year.

 

Another reason why I you can't really call me racist is I never said *which* particular race I was against...? If you're a polish-scottish-french canadian like myself, you get in here illegally? Get out.

 

That's asking me to take away the context, Saruman. You're playing coy right now because you know what I'm saying is the truth. There isn't 11 million Polish-Scottish-French Canadian undocumented workers in this country. You know damned well certain that's not why Arizona passed this bill. They're a border state: take the five seconds to think that through. How many Polish-Scottish-French Canadians do you know who live below Arizona and are hopping the border?

 

Look. You can believe that we have a problem with people coming here illegally. That's fine. I have a problem with it as well, although I suspect my problems with it aren't the same as yours. However, your expressed support for this bill, mixed with the language you've used, has made it clear that there's a racial underlying to your opposition to immigration. This is a racist bill, and it's not going to solve any problems. Hell, a lot of the Republicans in power do not want this bill actually enforced. The entire point is to wink and nod at their base. I expect this law goes out with a 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' to every law-enforcement entity to refrain from any enforcement. I mean, it's been a legal requirement in Kennesaw Mountain, GA, for every household to own at least one gun for what, thirty years, and there's never been anyone charged with an offense against the ordinance. That wasn't the point. The point was to give a wink to gun nuts like Kreig and get them excited to come out and vote in the election. Same with this bill. Although I suspect there was a little bit too much meat on this bill, and there will probably be a lot of law suits against the state police. This is assuming they'll ever be able to enforce it, as it could be struck down in the courts before it even comes to be the law of the land. I also expect Latinos to be harassed like all hell on election day to reduce their turnout at their polling places.

[Saru Inc]

I never expressed support for this bill. ;) Because I don't support it, I just support tougher immigration laws. I've just been saying I don't agree with you. I certainly don't agree with Kreig, or the bill. Now I can see how it may be easily assumed I do support, but I don't. And if I said it anywhere on this thread it was a brain relay error.