Less ridiculous would be that some radicals were expecting someone to be arrested for that reason so the authorities would get egg on their faces when it was found later that the guy with the signs was born in east LA.
Couldn’t it also be read as: support us know because soon we will have the numbers to vote you out?
Note, this latest march and this new-found “Americanism” came after the last demonstration where there was a profoundly anti-American feeling mixed with some ferverent Mexican nationalism.
Did you miss the word “sarcastic” in my last post? It seemed pretty clear to me that she was mocking the idea that you can identify illegal aliens just by looking at them. This seems to be an idea you have not entirely grasped yourself, based on your current argument.
Again, what did you understand the term to mean when you typed it? You included it in a list of characteristic which you seem to think, taken together, are grounds for questioning the legality of someone’s residence. So what did you mean when you said it? Don’t tell me to ask Eva Luna what she meant. I know what she meant. I want to know what you meant.
No, but I would object to detaining and questioning people based solely on the fact that they are expressing a political opinion with which you disagree, or doing it in a language you don’t think they should be using.
Are you that dense?
News to me that Democrats are anti-americans.
Are you intentionally being obtuse? What has this got to do with the Democratic party?
Allow me to explain, the tone of the initial marches were pro-Mexican and used aggressive rhetoric regarding their role and rights in America. Wisely enough, the organizers saw that this sort of thing might annoy and perhaps even frighten people. That’s bad when you are trying to legalize an illegal act. So, they toned down the rhetoric and made the marchers more “pro-American” regardless of their true feelings one way or another.
You would have to be a dribbling half-wit not to think the marches were not orchestrated in this manner.
Still dense I see.
The dense comes in the fact that all along I have been making the point that many organizers planned it that way always, only the extremists wanted to make it a show of anger, they only succeeded on having the media concentrating on the boycott, but that was about it.
And then we have dense guys like you that are upset the protest did not come to be an example of why we should kick all of them out.
And my point that you missed remains: there can be nothing more American that to vote against the troglodytes that thought it was a good idea to have only a punitive bill when they had the chance to have more humane component to the plan. It just so happens that the ones that created the punitive only bill in the house were Republicans so that leaves even the Hispanics that had only lukewarm support for Latino illegals to decide that Democrats should always be preferred to vote for for now on.
Oh, so since you just implied it, it can stand all by itself without requiring a cite, but if you’d been less chickenshit in your xenophobia and actually stated it, then a cite would be warranted?
Got it.
Why would we have to challenge him on what he was implying? I’m bright enough to know what he was implying without actually needing further clarification. Hell, he admitted that he implied what I said he did an hour before you posted your response.
As much as I would like to claim credit for the occasional bit of snark and cynicism, I believe that phrase is from a specific court decision, which I’ve heard cited about half a billion times in immigration court hearings on motions to suppress evidence allegedly gathered through illegal questioning/detentions of people suspected to be in the U.S. illegally - sadly, I can’t search Lexis-Nexis, etc. at work unless it’s for a specific case I’m working on, so if someone with access could search that phrase, I’d be greatly obliged. I used to do that stuff all the time, but I haven’t worked there in more than 10 years, so my knowledge of the case law is rather rusty. But here’s a Supreme Court decision that’s more or less on point:
“Assuming that Congress has the power to admit aliens on condition that they submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be in the country, such power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. The Fourth Amendment therefore forbids stopping persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens…In this case the officers relied on a single factor to justify stopping respondent’s car: the apparent Mexican ancestry [422 U.S. 873, 886] of the occupants. We cannot conclude that this furnished reasonable grounds to believe that the three occupants were aliens. At best the officers had only a fleeting glimpse of the persons in the moving car, illuminated by headlights. Even if they saw enough to think that the occupants were of Mexican descent, this factor alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens, nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country. Large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and even in the border area a relatively small proportion of them are aliens. The likelihood that any given [422 U.S. 873, 887] person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.”
Damn right it wouldn’t be foolproof. I can’t believe you are categorizing speaking a language besides English in public as grounds for suspicion in a country where well over 10% of the population is foreign-born, and that’s not counting U.S.-born people who speak a foreign language. Heck, both my parents and two of my four grandparents were born in the U.S., nobody in my family has a primary language other than English, and there are plenty of time I walk down the street speaking a foreign language.
What kind of society would you have the U.S. emulate - Franco’s Spain, where minority languages were suppressed? What kind of democratic values are those?
You don’t have to challenge him on anything. But if you’re going to hold a staement against him as a claim made by him, you need to have him clarify it before you attack it. Otherwise, you’re attacking him for what you think he meant. And that just leads to a sloppy finger-pinting sub-debate that doesn’t get to the issue. If I missed a specific claim he made in the exchange, please point out me to it.
I simply added things that I understood (my words) to her words. If you re-examine the exchange I think you’ll find that to be the case. Whatever those words represented to her is immaterial to me. You asked me about my words, and I answered. And as far as what she might have meant by them, she has now explaained herself. That’s good enough for me. I have no reason to believe that she is lying about it.
Now, I know you want to turn this into a debate about racial profiling, so go right ahead. Debate with **Eva Luna. ** Or open a thread on the subject.
I’m in this thread to debate the protestors and illegal aliens. See the OP.
I agree.
And FWIW one of the employment lawyers in my department was apparently called on this week to write talking points for managers at our offices in Pilsen and Little Village, two primarily Hispanic neighborhoods here - there was a severe personnel issue in that basically the entire staff of those offices (all employed legally in the U.S. - we are very much by-the-book) wanted the day off to go to the demonstration in support of their friends, family, and neighbors.
In the end management decided to leave only a skeleton crew in those offices, but they had to refuse to allow quite a number of employees to use their vacation time for that purpose, for coverage reasons, even though most of the customer base was also at the demonstration. One of my teammates has a sister who teaches ESL to first-graders at a largely Hispanic school, and more than half the students were absent on Monday (5 - 10% is the norm).
When you have nothing to say, demonize your opponent. Very Leninist of you.
You and I have been debating this issue…er…no we haven’t but nice show of self-importance. Here’s a clue, in the first series of protests the extremists won as Mexican flags either equalled or outnumbered US flags. The organizers clued into the fact that this was a bad thing.
Excuse me? You fucking clown, where did I say anything of the sort? Where did I make any sort of statement?
Nice of you to define what is and is not American. To me, there is nothing more American than actually upholding the law or at least following the democratic process to change the law.
Yet it was voted on and approved by a number of democracts. Nice effort at generalization (despite surveys that show many hispanic immigrants want to limit immigration) you gobshite.
And their business. Immigration law firms in Chicago (hi Eva Luna I live in Chicago as well) do a lot of business with hispanics and any system that requires paperwork etc. will benefit immigration lawfirms. I’m sure your firm will somehow manage to survive.
Oh you poor thing.
You have to go back to the prop 187 deal, pictures I saw of the recent protests and the ones I saw in San Francisco show that you are behind the times.
I’m inferring that, and I see I’m more on the mark.
And that is what many legal immigrants like me are demanding.
And I mentioned before those democrats (not the mayority of them BTW), but to an ignorant “Johnnie come lately” like you that is bound to happen.
I do think you are also behind the times on that, and that refers indeed to limit immigration not the matter at hand.
http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-timesimmigration,0,2858359.story?coll=ktla-news-1
Your points here reminded me of other people that were banned from being part of something but then accepted later: this time from Baseball: Blacks like Jackie Robinson had to keep quiet when even other players called him the N word, for a whole season he had to take abuse in many forms and behave, then after that first season other mayor league teams saw that blacks were good players and that they don’t bite. Other teams accepted blacks in their rooster. After a couple of seasons, and more blacks in the mayors, Jackie Robinson got permission to not take it from other players… they never knew what hit them.
Now only the racist players had troubles, but you know what? Baseball was not destroyed.
Now Imagine finding someone that would think blacks like Jackie Robinson did the “play peaceful and hide your true nature” with the idea to end baseball as we know it or to make it belong to lets say Africa, what a devious plot of the Blacks! So well executed! Only that that someone is mistaken: that plan was not to follow the designs of the black panthers or black power extremists, it was just as it was: to show the rest of America that they were normal people, even if extremists were happy for other blacks making it into MLB, that was no reason to prevent the ban of blacks in baseball to end.
Likewise, the May day protest has indeed some radical elements, but that is not reason enough to prevent a plan to legalize many of them; citizenship, if considered later, will be earned not given.
Really, calling you dense is the least of your worries.
You’re missing a slight difference. The problem here is not color or race, it’s illegality. You keep simply ignoring this inconvenient fact. I know of no one who has posted that is anti-immigration or anti-Mexican, or anti-Hispanic. Out of my four very best friends here in SF, one is a dark-skinned Mexican (born here). Your tendency to want to couch this as an issue of race weakens any valid point you might have. Can you truly not accept that people who are not racists might be holding a principled position? Not necessarily correct, but principled?
This is just nonsense. It’s like my robbing a Rolls Royce and then you saying that if I pay you $10,000, it’s not a gift. (The car AND me not going to jail.) Do you think those waiting legally will view this amnesty as “earned”? Or a lie and a big slap in the face? Well, at least you have Bush on your side in this argument, though.
You are actually always ignoring that there are options to legalize their stay, once again more possible than your pipe dreams.
I brought the baseball issue as an answer to **Lochdale ** idea that the peaceful nature of the protests are hiding the real nature of the protesters. I actually see better leadership coming from the Latino community, but he chooses only an ulterior plot.
Not in this case, nothing can be principled when it is based on fantastic assumptions.
Half of my family that did wait legally never saw that as a slap, but thanks for the ongoing condescension.
Sorry, can’t make this out. Please restate. And you might try leaving off the “pipe dream” thing. It was only barely mildly inventive the first 19 times you’ve used it.
Of course, you see his point of being completely devoid of merit. But your claim about the leadership being good and his about them “correcting” what happened at earlier protests are not mutually exclusive.
What fantastic assumptions might they be?
Condescension? If you’re talking about my analogy using another crime to make a point, sorry, but an analogy must use another example of law-breaking. Try looking at the facts.
And if you want to see condescension, reread your posts in this and the other immigration threads today. I bring it up in the hopes that you might not be aware of it and will welcome being focused on it.
Quick, call Guiness Records…we got alot of 160+ year olds marching all over the place. :dubious:
