Care to back that up with a relevant and reputable cite? Please ensure the cite address the Canadian’s ability to speak American English.
Goodie for you. It’s amazing how loudly you demand cites for opinions, but state yours as if they’re indisputable.
That wasn’t about demands placed on immigrants to prove they’re legal, oh, comprehensionally challenged one. It was me wondering how this city plans to enforce their lovely new law. How are they going to go about separating the legal immigrants from the illegal ones? How are they planning on training people who rent residences to differentiate authentic identification from false? Where are they going to come up with the budget to do so? Sounds like a pretty sweeping law; I don’t think asking for a few details on enforcement is all that much to ask.
Oh, but it is. Perhaps you and your wife have no problems with your civil rights being infringed upon. Why you’d be proud of such a thing is beyond me, and yet you seem very pompously impressed with yourself over it. I have a problem with it, as I rather like my civil rights. Being considered innocent until proven guilty is rather a biggie.
As you have once again proven you were out sick they day they taught 1+1=2, I’ll be happy to enlighten your not-yet beer soaked synapses.
My response was directly to you. Not to the law passed by the town. To what you, Dave, said. I’m sorry you didn’t like it, but your smug assertion that you’re happy to prove you’re American was so patently absurd, I felt you needed to be called on for it. So I did. Once again: whether or not you are willing to surrender your civil rights means nothing to me whatever. You have no right to expect other people to surrender theirs just because you, personally, don’t have a problem with it. I realize, you are the ideal American Citizen, and we should all bask in your glory, but, you know, potato, potahto.
What I find most amusing about this whole immigration issue is that the people doing the biggest chicken little impressions are people who, until very recently, considered immigration issues a “California/Arizona/Texas/New Mexico problem.” But now that immigration is on the upswing in the midwest, the NIMBYs are out in force.
Nice moving of the goalposts there, Maureen. We are talking about illegality. But nice try. Tell me, are people who break aer laws and sneak in to your country or overstay their visas “your kind of people”?
The answer to the last question is “No, and stop being ridiculous.”. As far as ther rest, I would expect that paople would need to demonstrate that they took reasonable measures to make sure. But I see the problem you raise. It;'s a real one that you may have just solved. We probably need for INS offices to make it easier for people to either prove, or check on, someone’s immigration status. Think locally, deport quickly. Makes sense.
What does that have to do with the anything? I am not surprised that Hispanic-owned businesses can be successful and can be a boon to a community. What does ousting illegals have to do with that proposition? Do you think that such success is married to people being here illegally? For those few that might be, their businesses will have to adapt or go out of business. Such is the American way.
I have a feeling they’re yours, too. Unless you happen to be descended from a member of one of the indigenous tribes of Native Americans. Sorry, I keed. It isn’t that I don’t see illegal immigration as a problem. It’s just that I happen to live in an area that’s had this problem for so long that I can see both sides of the issue. It isn’t new to me, so I don’t feel the pressing urge to wave my arms in the air and scream about the falling sky, because it’s pretty much already fallen here. 
Sure, I think something should be done about it. But I don’t think this particular law is the way to go about doing it. Illegal immigrants are intimately tied into our economic growth. Sad but true. Harsher punishments for employers may have an impact, but are legal immingrants and native citizens willing to fill the void left by migrant workers and illegal immigrants? What kind of impact will it have on industries that are already surviving on a razor thin margin? We’re already facing some of those problems here in California. Something somewhere has to give.
Well, and here is where my earlier assertion comes in. At some point, we’re going to have to resort to some sort of profiling. When do apartment managers go to the expense of finding out whether or not credentials presented are legit, and how do they go about it? What’s the criteria?
It was nothing you said. It had to do with another quote by that idiot mayor which I now can’t remember. And in re-reading it, I can’t find it, naturally. Sorry about that.
Has been for a long time:
- A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
Yep. And that something is the idea that we should just throw our hands up in the air. Plus, I think you believe that illegals are a net benefit to society. You may want to search some of the other threads on this is see the reports that show otherwise. Regardless, we should all be able to agree on Steps 1), stop further illegal immigration and 2) encourage as many as possible to go back of their own volition before we need to discuss what comes next.
I’m not a landlord, but I wold thinki some combination of drivers license, work history, ss#, etc. For those who have a difficult time producing the easy stuff, they wold warrant further steps. Perhaps the prospective tenants shold have to provide some unforgeable document from the INS, as well.
Maureen, you’re a fucking idiot. I haven’t demanded cites for any opinions, and if you have one stating that Hispanic is a race, then present it, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. How about you? You have, several times, completely ignored the on topic questions I have asked you about the lies you have been posting in this thread, are you willing to admit that you’re wrong? Now you’ve changed the subject and you’re bleating about the violation of your “civil rights”. Tell me, what civil right is being violated, oh hysterical one?
Miller-
That’s not the definition of race being used here, and you well know it. Interesting that you skip over the first definition of race:
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
See? I can use Dictionary.com too.
I’ve lied? In what way? Because I disagreed with you? Y’know, it’s taken three and a half years for me to figure out why I don’t participate in threads with you, but it’s certainly crystal clear now. People who disagree with you aren’t liars, Dave. Really. Get some help for these rage issues.
So…you’re saying that Hispanics in general and Mexicans specifically do not exhibit genetically transmitted physical characteristics? Now who’s playing fast and loose with the truth?
I don’t believe this for a single second. Care to give us all a cite?
No, I’m saying it’s an issue that deserves some serious consideration, and that just because a few states that have never had this problem before are facing it now, that’s no excuse to go making laws you have no way of enforcing, no plan for supporting the employers and housing authorities, may very well be illegal, and may encourage discrimination based on race.
Alright…and if people are born here? I’m minded strongly of Cheech Marin saying “Green card? I’m from East LA!” At some point, landlords are going to be faced with making a judgement call of whether or not to rent to someone with a Hispanic last name. And given the stiff penalties, why would they chance it? Then they run into fair housing laws, and either they risk breaking those laws based on racial discrimination, or they risk breaking the law of renting to someone who may be an illegal alien. Either way, they’re rather screwed. Why not just do what I said earlier? Fund the damn INS the way we should and make them do their jobs.
No, I was not aware of that. Perhaps you can point out where in this thead it is specified what definitions of race are being used, and what definitions are not? I seem to have overlooked it.
No, that’s not particularly interesting at all, because the first definition was not the definition I was refering to. What’s “interesting” about that? Unless you’re accusing me of some sort of deceit. It’d have to be a particularly stupid deceit on my behalf, what with the way I included a link to dictionary.com and even clearly labeled the defintion I was using as the second being supplied. Or maybe you’re just fascinated by the discovery that words can have one meaning. Or maybe it means your such a graceless bastard that you can’t stand any correction at all. If that’s the case, this next link is really going to piss you off, because the US Census bureau sure seems to think “hispanic” is a race.
So what? Does the word “discrimination” mean we have to turn into blithering idots and stick our heads in the sand. Fuck that. These people are doing a great thing. I’m sure the laws, and an appeal process, will be worked out, just like we work it our for everything else. In the meantime, someone is finally doing something about a huge problem. Information about race is one piece if the puzzle. We should use all the pieces we have. Now if you have a better idea I’d be happy to hear it. In the meantime, these people should get the Medal of Freedom.
Bring a landlord is a business. And like any other business, if you don’t want to abide by the rules, go into a different business. Eateries have deal with the Board of Health. Manufacturies have OSHA issues and what not. If you don’t abide by the rules, you go out of business. Simple. And you keep bringing up “racial discrimination”. How about calling it “intelligent raciaal discernment”. We know that the vast majority of the illegals come from Mexico and points south, not using that piece of information, like any other piece of value, would be idiocy. Albeit idocy that many on these boards would advocate.
No, it means that the word “discrimination” means we have to give the same chance to everyone regardless of their race. Someone isn’t doing something about a huge problem, someone is playing politics in an election year. How is it you’re not able to see this? The law is already being challenged and will no doubt be overturned. The mayor can then say “I tried my best to do the right thing, but those damn commie ACLU liberals hate America!” and all will be well for him for a few more years.
As for my suggestion, I’ve made it. Twice. Fund the INS. Give them the tools to do the job at hand. Stop whining about taxes, because that’s what funds these programs, and if you want something done about illegal immigration, it’s going to cost tax dollars to pay for it. You can’t have it both ways.
snerk Medal of Freedom for denying others theirs… you were being ironic, right?
Okay, but again…which rule does he follow? The one that says don’t discriminate based on race or you’ll be shut down, or the one that says don’t rent to illegal aliens or you’ll be shut down? It’s very easy to make those judgement calls when you personally will never be forced into that position, I’ve noticed.
Well, raising taxes is one way to fund it, one that I’d be fine with as it is a fundamental and legitimate role of governement. That quibble aside, I’m sure the mayor and all his fine supporteres would LOVE your idea, as I do. But, two problems. 1) Do they have any reason believe that the feds will now finally do something after they’ve turned a blind eye top the problem for the past twenty years and the senate is more interested in amnesty-light than enforcement? 2) If the feds aere behind it fully (Ha!), how many years do you thiink it would take to put everything in place? No the feds are not going to do shit. Medals of Freedom for them and the MinuteMen. And no, I am not kidding.
Just make it legal for race to be one of the many factors to be looked at.
I’m still waiting on some kind of proof that “Canadians speak English better than Americans.”
Which proves what, precisely? There are people of the “Mexican” or “Hispanic” race whose families have been U.S. citizens for longer than your family or my family have been. Matter of fact, there is a Senator from my state who fits that definition.
Fifty years ago, Mayor Barletta would have been saying how negroes were causing crime and the city council would have passed a law fining any landlords who rented to a black person or any business that hired one.
And fifty years before that, it was the Italians getting the blame for all our problems and Barletta wouldn’t have had a chance in hell of getting elected in the first place.
I suppose in another fifty years, we’ll have Mayor Rodriguez complaining about how Malaysian immigrants are responsible for street crime and are taking all the good jobs.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or diagreeing with me. You have made the following statements in this thread:
#1 You have shown no evidence that the proposed law is racist in any way. Does the proposed law say that only renters who appear to be Mexican or have Hispanic names must provide proof that they are legal, or would it apply to all renters? Does the law limit acceptable renters to only those people who have a US birth certificate (implying that only native born Americans may rent) or does it allow anyone who is a legal resident of the US to rent? If you can not provide a cite that the law doesn’t require all renters to provide proof of legal ability to reside in the US, than this statement is a LIE.
#2 Same as #1. If you can not present a cite that the law only applies to “brown people” or that an illegal presenting fraudulent paperwork would not be arrested for doing so, than this statement is a LIE.
#3 Despite my repeated requests, you have presented no proof that this law would subject people to random stops and demands for paperwork. If you can not provide that cite, than this statement is a LIE.
#4 Demands that immigrants prove they’re legal is exactly what this law is about. No qualifications here, this statement is a LIE.
#5 and 6. You have again declined to state what civil rights are being violated by this law. Implying that it does violate, somehow, people’s civil rights, and that I personally don’t mind having my civil rights violated, is a LIE.
#7 Does the law require profiling? If not, than this statement is a LIE.
THAT is why I called you a liar Maureen. Provide cites to back your statements up and I will cheerfully admit that I was wrong and that you did not lie. I’ll even apologize. But until you do, I suspect the rason that you may not like to participate in threads with me is because I have a low tolerance for bullshit, and I’m not willing to let general, nebulous and false statements pass without challenging them.
Maureen, again, Mexican and Hispanic are not synonyms. Mexicans are from Mexico. Hispanics come from just aout everywhere south of the borders of the US, from Chile to Cuba. If you’re claiming that all the people who live in that vast area demonstrate homoginous genetically transmitted physical characteristics, then I suggest that you are the one who is playing fast and loose with the facts. Stay tuned, however, I haven’t investigated Miller’s cite yet. I may have to retract some of that.
The common use definition of “racism” refers to discrimination based upon “a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.” Broadining that definition to apply to any “group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution” renders it meaningless. By that definition, if I was to say “I hate New Yorkers”, then I would be a racist. I find such a broadly defined term to be useless.
I’m one of the people on these boards who has no problem admitting when I’m wrong. I’m not sure that you’ve shown that I am though. The page you’ve linked talks about minority groups in the US, not about race specifically. Further digging finds that yes, the U.S. Census DOES classify these minorities using the term “race”, but then goes on in the FAQS to qualify that term to the point that it’s meaningless as I noted above:
If what I said in this post doesn’t clarify what I’m talking about, ask again with a little more detail and I’ll try to answer.
Uh, did you not notice the word “illegal”? :rolleyes:
Weirddave, I’m very much in agreement with you on most, if not all, of the issues in this thread. But this practice of equating someone who may simply be incorrect or wrongheaded with putting forth a lie DRIVES ME NUTS!
As I’ve argued before on these boards before:
Incorrect statement = wrong
Incorrect statement + knowledge that it is incorrect = lie
Please, for the sake of making an example for future debates, acknowledge the difference.