No. It’s not the slightest bit off base. It’s what you said:
Why? The fact that a given analogy is overused or foolishly applied to cases where the comparison is clearly absurd is no reason not to employ in where it is, in fact, apropos.
To be fair to SA, being in love with the sound of one’s own typing is probably the impetus behind 90% of posts to this board. Even the posts by non-idiots.
Sure it is. Like it or not, the comparison is a tainted one. Thanks to people using it so foolishly it’s largely a discredited accusation. Certainly, on terms of merit, that people use it wrongly is not a reason to assume wrong usage in all occasions, but communication isn’t solely substance.
You’re right. I prefer the new one of
“won’t someone think of the poow liddle old white men who are victimized by having to interact with people who don’t look just like them”
Nope, in this case it’s spot on. When you have xenophobic violent propaganda inspiring thugs to violently enforce their racial hierarchy, supported in spirit by 20-30% of the population, you can’t really get any closer analogy-wise.
So assuming you’re not a coward talking shit you can’t back up. What’s your answer to the question? Do you break another country’s law or let your kid starve?
Given your initial brainless response I figure you’ll be too stupid to give an actual answer.
Given my incredibly strong feelings on the subject, I’m not touching the rest of this thread with a ten foot pole. But I strongly believe the key to figuring out this immigration problem - however you view it - is to deal in the facts. The number of undocumented workers who are smuggled into the U.S. is vanishingly small compared to the number of people who come into the country on legal work VISAs and allow their documents to expire. So your proposed solution of increasing border security would not be effective at staunching illegal immigration.
Wait? What!? You mean we’ve been letting brown people into the country? Legally?
Why, why…I NEVER!!!
I thought this was a racist country determined to keep as many brown people out as possible so their children will starve!
I mean, that’s what you people have been saying all this time.
So instead we’ve been letting so many in for so long that the visa (not VISA) overstayers have become a major part of the problem? Well, in that case I’m sure there are remedies for that as well. (And I’m equally sure that whatever remedies might be suggested will be met with fevered claims of racism by the ilk.)
But, I’ve been fairly busy the last couple of days and haven’t had the time (nor patience) to return to this thread so I can’t elaborate more now. I’ll try to do so later and answer some of the so-ridiculous-as-to-strain-if-not-break-credulity things said about me and my comments upthread.
olives, as the OP, I rather wish you would. I’m pretty sure that whatever you have to offer would raise the thread’s average post quality and relevance at this point. But I understand if you decline.
An addendum: By “you people” I wasn’t necessarily talking about you, olives, as I don’t recall you as being one of those for whom the mere mention of illegal immigration as a problem automatically equates to racism.
No, I think it’s much more complex than that. I have studied the issue long enough to know it’s a real problem and there are no easy solutions. I do think that the rhetoric often used by opponents to illegal immigration often harmfully conflates skeevy drug-lord illegal immigrants with people who are just trying to survive economically. I do not live in Arizona - I’m currently taking an Immigration Law and Policy class and I’m hoping we cover Arizona in more depth, because I understand it’s a whole different world down there than it is in the Midwest and Northeast. But I see that kind of rhetoric all over the country - and feel it is misleading. Most people in this country who are not legal residents are living in extreme poverty under oppressive working conditions with no acces to health care, traumatized by the experience of leaving the country they love, breaking their backs just so their families can survive. They are such a far cry from this dangerous illegal alien stereotype that it’s difficult to take that kind of fear-mongering seriously. I believe when we discuss these matters a clear distinction should be made between the ‘‘violent criminal’’ and the ‘‘day laborer.’’
ETA - regarding the ‘‘driving while brown’’ comment, I don’t believe the Law has a racist intent necessarily, but it will certainly have racial implications. I’m no constitutional law scholar but it seems like a recipe for racial profiling to me.
You’re an idiot
Is that in the preamble?
To return to the OP topic:
I suppose that’s justice.
There is only one exception I make to my general opposition to the death penalty, and that is when the crime includes elements of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
I think the perpetrators fit this, of course it was very unlikely that they would had made their dreams of funding their little kingdom of hate work, but it is the action taken towards that irrational goal that counts.
…And in other embarrassing news about my home state, the legislators are hard at work creating an Official State Gun.
:smack::mad:
I must admit, that was quicker than I thought it would be.
Of course that’s just the first trial. Jason Bush, the man who (allegedly) shot Brisenia and her family on Forde’s instructions, and another (alleged) accomplice in the scheme, Albert Robert Gaxiola, have trials coming up in March and June respectively. And Forde’s death penalty gets automatically appealed.
Not “illegals.” If that’s important to you.