Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Folks, it’s getting crazy. Now, the enforcement of our immigration laws is tantamount to apartheid.
Quote:
The process of ethnic cleansing in Arizona is a step closer to fulfillment today thanks to neo-Nazi-hugger and state Senator Russell Pearce and his allies. Pearce's Senate Bill 1175, which passed the Committee of the Whole and is likely headed for its third and final read on Monday, will force law personnel in all cities, towns and counties in the state to enforce federal immigration law, inquire after an arrestee's immigration status, and turn undocumented persons over to the feds if local charges are dropped.
Even more insidiously, the bill makes it "unlawful for a non-U.S. citizen to enter into or be on any public or private land if the person is in violation of federal immigration law."
Essentially, the bill criminalizes an entire class of persons, and will de facto make everyone with brown skin suspect. Hispanics are already second-class citizens in this state. This bill will codify that fact, and make the parallels between South Africa under apartheid and modern-day Arizona even more blatant.
Another worrisome piece of lawmaking comes in the form of SB 1280, which makes it a felony to "conceal, harbor or shield from detection in any place an illegal alien." (Republican state Senator Jonathan Paton was the prime sponsor of this bill.) If SB 1280 gives you creepy flashbacks to the first time you read Anne Frank's diary, you're not the only one. (The analogy is admittedly inexact, but alas, unavoidable.) SB 1280 also passed COW, and is expected to go to its third read Monday
Main Entry:
apart·heid Pronunciation:\ə-ˈpär-ˌtāt, -ˌtīt\ Function:noun Etymology:Afrikaans, from apart apart + -heid -hoodDate:19471: racial segregation ; specifically: a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2:separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>
Like it or not, it fits within the definition (2) of apartheid.
Like it or not, it fits within the definition (2) of apartheid.
Your inane ‘wit’ is an affront to all of the victims of apartheid. Clearly, there is no depth too low for you to stoop. You are a prime example of why we don’t want illegals in this country.
How exactly does it fit? So you are for people harboring a dangerous fugitive in America? That is the same thing. The illegals broke the law by entering our country. If an American breaks the law in this country and you are found harboring them, you go to jail too. I do not see a problem here.
How exactly does it fit? So you are for people harboring a dangerous fugitive in America? That is the same thing. The illegals broke the law by entering our country. If an American breaks the law in this country and you are found harboring them, you go to jail too. I do not see a problem here.
What is the jail time given to someone:
1) Who lives with an individual who has scammed the country? Evaded taxes?
2) Who lives with a person who has run a red light? Stop sign? went over a speed limit?
2) Who lives with a person who has committed I.D. theft? Drug deals?
Are you sure that in every crime does the person, who provides shelter to an individual who has commited a crime and has not been tried in court, or an individual who the police is looking as a suspect, get charged?
If not, why is this crime, that does not even get tried in a criminal court, would have those specail considerations? That is why this is targeting/segregating a specific group of people.
And then you also ask the question:
Quote:
So you are for people harboring a dangerous fugitive in America?
No I'm not, if there is a reasonable 'reason' to believe that the person, be it a U.S. citizen or illegal alien, is dangerous then it should fall under the same process that the law provides for harboring dangerous criminals. But, since most illegal aliens are not dangerous criminals I do not see the reason for such a law.
1) Who lives with an individual who has scammed the country? Evaded taxes?
2) Who lives with a person who has run a red light? Stop sign? went over a speed limit?
2) Who lives with a person who has committed I.D. theft? Drug deals?
Are you sure that in every crime does the person, who provides shelter to an individual who has commited a crime and has not been tried in court, or an individual who the police is looking as a suspect, get charged?
If not, why is this crime, that does not even get tried in a criminal court, would have those specail considerations? That is why this is targeting/segregating a specific group of people.
And then you also ask the question:
No I'm not, if there is a reasonable 'reason' to believe that the person, be it a U.S. citizen or illegal alien, is dangerous then it should fall under the same process that the law provides for harboring dangerous criminals. But, since most illegal aliens are not dangerous criminals I do not see the reason for such a law.
If you are that upset at our hardening attitudes towards illegal aliens here in the USA-----------leave.
The party is over for their kind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
