Alabama Republican voters skew heavily toward the Crimson Tide, with 58% identifying as Alabama fans to 28% who are Auburn fans. Santorum leads the way among Tiger fans with 35% to 30% for Gingrich and 26% for Romney. Romney's up 32-31 on Gingrich with 'Bama fans to Santorum's 27%. And among football agnostics Romney leads with 34% to 28% for Gingrich and 24% for Santorum.
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal
21% Illegal
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html)
More than 68 percent of Alabamians between the ages of 25 and 64 don't have a college degree
Just 58%? Seems low.Quotehttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html)
More than 68 percent of Alabamians between the ages of 25 and 64 don't have a college degree
Just 58%? Seems low.I'm assuming the 14% Not Sure thought they were asking whether or not Obama was an Auburn or Alabama fan.Quotehttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/09/where_we_rank_alabamians_lag_o.html)
More than 68 percent of Alabamians between the ages of 25 and 64 don't have a college degree
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf)
Some notables:
51% male
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Abstain
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure
This doesn't add up to 100, so I choose Probably.
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal
21% Illegal
Abstain
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
Another math failure.
Since you asked...At least you "abstained" on some.
51% maleI might have answered Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing? with "I'm not sure", but I really lean more toward "No". I'm all for getting illegals documented. I support E-verify, and similar efforts. Alabama's anti-immigration law, which makes racial profiling legal, is over the top.
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal
21% Illegal
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
51% male
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal
21% Illegal
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
51% male
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure and don't really care as much as you would think.
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes - I think evolution and creation can co-exist.
13% Not Sure
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal - why would it not be? Dumb question
21% Illegal
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
Yes - I think evolution and creation can co-exist.By the way, it is refreshing to see everyone so far answering this way. Apparently, only a quarter of Alabama conservatives agree with this.
At least you "abstained" on some.
You "abstained" on interracial marriage. I guess this means since it's legal, you think it should be legal. Or you think it should be outlawed, but "just don't want to say."
If you think it should be illegal, is this only white-black marriages that you think should be against the law? What about Caucasian-Asian, or Caucasian-Hispanic? Black-Hispanic? Asian-Bengali/Hindu?
Protip: My wife is Puerto Rican, so technically I'm in an interracial marriage.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif)
By the way, it is refreshing to see everyone so far answering this way. Apparently, only a quarter of Alabama conservatives agree with this.
Yes it is. This poll is done by a well-known, left-leaning polling center in Raleigh, NC and it's clearly designed to pander to the stereotypes of Southerners that the inside-the-beltway elitists and the arrogant, self-entitled, self-important, insufferable, narcissistic liberals already have of us (e.g. uneducated, barefoot, mouth-breathing, provincial, hayseeds ala Mike Huckabee). Thanks but no-thanks.
Do you believe in evolution?Interesting. So fossils, DNA sequences, systematic biology, population genetics, biogeography, and numerous laboratory experiments are meaningless?
60% No - Nooope
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
By the way, it is refreshing to see everyone so far answering this way. Apparently, only a quarter of Alabama conservatives agree with this.
Damn that Raleigh, NC.
On the topic of race it's funny to me the number of people who are so enlightened, have never used a slur, their family has always been about equality. Really? Then who in the hell were all those people on campus at UA in 1963? Who in the hell were all those people at Wallace's inauguration cheering their asses off? They weren't just uneducated folks who climbed out of the hills. Bankers. Lawyers. Doctors. Businessmen.Not sure if you're talking about me here, but my grandfather was in the KKK back in the 40's & 50's. Even when I was a kid in the 80's, he would casually refer to black people as the N-word. Not even particularly in a hateful context. "That Bill Cosby is one funny (N-word)". I love my grandfather. Can't understand why he thought like that, but as you said, he was a product of the time and place he was raised.
YOUR grandmother and grandfather (or great-grand depending on your age). That's who those people were.
We're better to accept history for what it is instead of some revisionist version where we paint people as evil and ignore the fact that they were riding on the shoulders of the majority.
Ah... fuck it.
Interesting. So fossils, DNA sequences, systematic biology, population genetics, biogeography, and numerous laboratory experiments are meaningless?
I understand the debate as for the cause of evolution, but to deny that it occurs, on any level, is like denying gravity occurs.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf)
Some notables:
51% male **
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt **
30% Rick
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No**
12% Not Sure
It sucks big green donkey dicks
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim **
14% Christian
41% Not Sure
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
I actually think you can believe in creation and evolution
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal **
21% Illegal
Don't get the purpose of the question.Why would it be illegal?
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn **
14% Not Sure
Why would it not be? Dumb question
Don't get the purpose of the question.Why would it be illegal?I am equally confused, but ask the 21% of Alabamans that answered that it should be. More than one out of every five people they asked. Thankfully it's not the majority, but still, WTF.
As for the bias of the poll, I mean, they didn't answer for the people, or are you suggesting they are making up the results? If those are stereotypes of southerners, they are obviously founded, since those are their answers.
Yes it is. This poll is done by a well-known, left-leaning polling center in Raleigh, NC and it's clearly designed to pander to the stereotypes of Southerners that the inside-the-beltway elitists and the arrogant, self-entitled, self-important, insufferable, narcissistic liberals already have of us (e.g. uneducated, barefoot, mouth-breathing, provincial, hayseeds ala Mike Huckabee). Thanks but no-thanks.
I think a lot of Catholics feel this way, actually. So much so that the Vatican has said that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "compatible" with Christianity (I won't debate why it took them until 2009 to say that, however).Exactly... That's what makes these polls so damn silly. They force you into a direction by the way these questions are worded.
My belief? Science and Religion don't need to be at odds with each other.
I am equally confused, but ask the 21% of Alabamans that answered that it should be. More than one out of every five people they asked. Thankfully it's not the majority, but still, WTF.
As for the bias of the poll, I mean, they didn't answer for the people, or are you suggesting they are making up the results? If those are stereotypes of southerners, they are obviously founded, since those are their answers.
Alabama's Immigration Law? How many people really know everything that's in it? From what I've heard, there are a lot of good things about it. I've also heard the whining about the racial stereotyping... The fact is the states are tired of the Fed not doing enough to address it. Something needs to be done, and the states are taking a stand.
The only logical answer to the immigration law is NO. I've sat through at least 80 hours worth of seminars, classes and conferences in the last 12 months regarding the law. NOBODY understands or can enforce it. That's how fucked up it is.
Anyone who says it is good, is completely misinformed on the law, or they hate Hispanics. And don't give me the "ALL illegals" crap. Everyone knows the law was written and endorsed because whitey is tired of seeing mexicans in the grocery store line.
The only logical answer to the immigration law is NO. I've sat through at least 80 hours worth of seminars, classes and conferences in the last 12 months regarding the law. NOBODY understands or can enforce it. That's how fucked up it is.
Anyone who says it is good, is completely misinformed on the law, or they hate Hispanics. And don't give me the "ALL illegals" crap. Everyone knows the law was written and endorsed because whitey is tired of seeing mexicans in the grocery store line.
It's racist. So, let's do nothing... :rolleyes:
The major issues? It's unduly burdensome to LE Agencies, DA's Offices, and courts, yet ultimately, it's completely unenforceable.
It's racist. So, let's do nothing... :rolleyes:Yeah, FUCK the constitution!
I'm completely with you on that. No argument from me on that...
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
Another math failure.
Yeah, FUCK the constitution!
So, let's do nothing... :rolleyes:
Yeah, FUCK the constitution!Your interpretation isn't always reality. Aside from that, it's amazing how you never seem to mind when Obama ignores the Constitution. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/obama-tears-up-the-constitution/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/obama-tears-up-the-constitution/)
Honestly, doing nothing would have been less costly than passing that piece of crap unenforceable law, and it would have accomplished the same thing. NOTHING.
So, if you agree, then what about the law could possibly be good, or make anyone think it is unless they're completely ignorant about it?
Let's try it this way.
- Section 13 parrots federal immigration law... Unless you have an issue with the federal law, what could be wrong or un-Constitutional about this?
- What's wrong with e-Verify? Hell, Obama promoted its use, so it must be good.
- The Alabama law specifically prohibits consideration by law enforcement officials of the race, color, or national origin of a detained person in determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause in questioning the person.
Got no problem with everify, I think it's good. But in the end, if it's unenforceable...what's the point?
Obviously, there are portions of this that are enforceable. For instance, using e-Verify when people apply for jobs, school, licenses or government benefits... Or, after someone has been arrested for another crime, why couldn't you verify their status and take appropriate action? We all know that the legislation isn't perfect, but that shouldn't invalidate the whole damn thing...
The point of the legislation was to criminalize the status of "being here illegally" and hiring, harboring, etc., "illegals" whether they came illegally, or overstayed their visa. It has NEVER been a CRIME to be here "illegally". EVER!Interesting... So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not. After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime. I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens. Care to provide a reference? BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama.
EVerify, and other provisions have already been in force in the Fed. law. AZ and AL sought to make it a CRIME to be here "illegally". To prove someone is here illegally, or to prove a crime of employing one, or harboring one, etc, etc, you have to have evidence. Guess who has any such documentation? That's right, the Feds. Guess who has plainly stated, they're not providing it to the states for such prosecutions?
Interesting... So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not. After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime. I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens. Care to provide a reference? BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama.
Bringing e-Verify down to the state level can't be a bad thing, especially since the federal government is providing access to it. And, since the federal government is providing access to e-Verify, I guess they are providing some evidence to verify a person's status to an extent.
So, why is this law baaaaad again? Perhaps, there are a couple of glitches, I suppose.
It's bad. I'm not wasting anymore time with someone that's fucking convinced that everything they believe or think they know is the gospel.
:rofl:
Interesting... So, even though portions of the legislation echo federal immigration law, the Alabama law somehow criminalizes illegal aliens, while the federal laws somehow do not. After reading it, I just don't see where an illegal alien would be charged with some sort of "illegal alien" crime. I do see reference to charges and penalties for dealing in false identification documents and vital records identity fraud, but I don't see any new criminal status for illegal aliens. Care to provide a reference? BTW, if I'm reading the law correctly, the state just turns them over to the Feds unless they are being prosecuted for other crimes in the state of Alabama.One of the problems with the law is that it depends on the feds on the backend of the process. For the state to prove their case, they are going to need cooperation from the federal level. Which they aren't giving. And then, do you think the state is deporting these folks back to wherever the fuck they came from? No. 9 times out of 10, or unless they really fucked up or have been previously deported, immigration picks them up and they get taken to a local immigration office, given a court date, and cut loose. That is if you can actually get immigration to place a detainer. Then they don't show up to their deportation hearing. And guess what? They're not showing up for their municipal court date either. Because they aren't going to get deported for a failure to appear either.
Bringing e-Verify down to the state level can't be a bad thing, especially since the federal government is providing access to it. And, since the federal government is providing access to e-Verify, I guess they are providing some evidence to verify a person's status to an extent.
So, why is this law baaaaad again? Perhaps, there are a couple of glitches, I suppose.
One of the problems with the law is that it depends on the feds on the backend of the process. For the state to prove their case, they are going to need cooperation from the federal level. Which they aren't giving. And then, do you think the state is deporting these folks back to wherever the fuck they came from? No. 9 times out of 10, or unless they really fucked up or have been previously deported, immigration picks them up and they get taken to a local immigration office, given a court date, and cut loose. That is if you can actually get immigration to place a detainer. Then they don't show up to their deportation hearing. And guess what? They're not showing up for their municipal court date either. Because they aren't going to get deported for a failure to appear either.
Another problem is there is no quick easy way to verify somebody's residency. Sure, maybe you can't find them by name and DOB. But maybe the officer fucked up the spelling of the name, or the dispatcher fucked up the DOB. So you take this poor bastard to jail. Because afterall, it takes about an hour to get an answer from immigration on status when you send an immigration query to them. So hey, this guy turns out to actually be here legally. It's not just as simple as "Oh hey, my bad. You're free to go now."
This whole thing is flawed on face value. I understand what this law should accomplish, but the way they wrote it is incredibly fucked up. They're basically asking officers to risk their asses civilly to enforce a law that almost guarantees that people will have their civil rights violated. And lawyers will annihilate those officers in court damn near every time. Bottom line is, at the state level, you simply cannot write a law in the way Alabama did without violating civil rights. The law is unenforceable, and will simply create a round-and-round-we-go in the court systems.
Waste of bandwidth. He's decided it just needs a little tweeking, and it mostly good, despite the plethora of Judges, DAs, LEO, and even the Atty Gen. saying it pretty much sux. Garman is the all knowing. He knows law, psychology, physiology, he fucking knows everything. Ask him if you don't believe me.
It's good you find your own ignorant arrogance funny.The arrogance has totally been on your part. You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson. I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing? Seriously...
The arrogance has totally been on your part. You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson. I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing? Seriously...Fuck's sake, man. The question was "Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?"
The arrogance has totally been on your part. You know better, speaking in over-generalizations at the level of Jessie Jackson. I know the law isn't perfect, but how would you fix it rather that just dismissing the whole damn thing? Seriously...The problem is, at the state level, you can't fix it without dismissing it. You just can't. The only real sure-fire solution is going back to the way things were; if you already have somebody in jail on whatever charge you arrested them on, run the query then, and deal with it that way. As shitty as that may be, it is damn near the only way you can do it legally. You simply cannot determine a person's residency within a few minutes. Just because they have a previously issued state ID doesn't mean they are here legally. What are you going to do, detain every contact you make for an hour while you run immigration queries all day? Good luck with that shit in civil court.
Fuck's sake, man. The question was "Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?"
Yes or no.
The answer is no.
One of the problems with the law is that it depends on the feds on the backend of the process. For the state to prove their case, they are going to need cooperation from the federal level. Which they aren't giving. And then, do you think the state is deporting these folks back to wherever the fuck they came from? No. 9 times out of 10, or unless they really fucked up or have been previously deported, immigration picks them up and they get taken to a local immigration office, given a court date, and cut loose. That is if you can actually get immigration to place a detainer. Then they don't show up to their deportation hearing. And guess what? They're not showing up for their municipal court date either. Because they aren't going to get deported for a failure to appear either.You're right... I agree with you on this, but according to the language of the law, the state doesn't deport them; they turn them over to the Feds. I can't disagree with the mess that follows. You're right.
Another problem is there is no quick easy way to verify somebody's residency. Sure, maybe you can't find them by name and DOB. But maybe the officer fucked up the spelling of the name, or the dispatcher fucked up the DOB. So you take this poor bastard to jail. Because afterall, it takes about an hour to get an answer from immigration on status when you send an immigration query to them. So hey, this guy turns out to actually be here legally. It's not just as simple as "Oh hey, my bad. You're free to go now."Again, all good points... But, let's consider what happens in other countries for a second. I've been working in Europe (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Austria and Spain) and Canada for years. If I'm ever stopped by the local police authority without my US passport, I go directly to their local jail. There's no begging, pleading, bargaining, nothing... You go to jail, and you don't get out until you or someone can prove that you belong there legally. Sometimes, you can call the local embassy, and they'll send a representative with a copy of your passport. Sometimes, you'll have to contact someone from your local office to get into your hotel room to get your passport for you. And, if you can't provide proof after a few days while sitting in jail, you're getting deported.
This whole thing is flawed on face value. I understand what this law should accomplish, but the way they wrote it is incredibly fucked up. They're basically asking officers to risk their asses civilly to enforce a law that almost guarantees that people will have their civil rights violated. And lawyers will annihilate those officers in court damn near every time. Bottom line is, at the state level, you simply cannot write a law in the way Alabama did without violating civil rights. The law is unenforceable, and will simply create a round-and-round-we-go in the court systems.I agree to an extent, but that doesn't invalidate the e-Verify portion of the bill. In fact, it doesn't invalidate several portions of the bill. They can still be enforced without violating civil rights, unreasonable arrests or whatever else.
Waste of bandwidth. He's decided it just needs a little tweeking, and it mostly good, despite the plethora of Judges, DAs, LEO, and even the Atty Gen. saying it pretty much sux. Garman is the all knowing. He knows law, psychology, physiology, he fucking knows everything. Ask him if you don't believe me.
Captain Know-it-all... Fucking pathetic...
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf)
Some notables:
51% male
49% female
If Election was Today:
28% Newt
31% Mitt
30% Rick
Barack Obama
Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?
67% Yes
22% No
12% Not Sure
Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?
60% Muslim
14% Christian
41% Not Sure
Do you believe in evolution?
60% No
26% Yes
13% Not Sure
Should interracial marriage be legal or illegal?
67% Legal
21% Illegal
Are you an Alabama or Auburn fan?
58% Alabama
28% Auburn
14% Not Sure
Fuck's sake, man. The question was "Is Alabama's Immigration Law a Good Thing?"
Yes or no.
The answer is no.
The problem is, at the state level, you can't fix it without dismissing it. You just can't. The only real sure-fire solution is going back to the way things were; if you already have somebody in jail on whatever charge you arrested them on, run the query then, and deal with it that way. As shitty as that may be, it is damn near the only way you can do it legally. You simply cannot determine a person's residency within a few minutes. Just because they have a previously issued state ID doesn't mean they are here legally. What are you going to do, detain every contact you make for an hour while you run immigration queries all day? Good luck with that shit in civil court.That part that you just referenced above only accounts for about 15-20% of the bill. And, as you've explained, if they are arrested for something else, you can perform the immigration checks at that time. The current bill covers that as well. It would be completely enforceable without all of this risk, overload, and whatever else...
I understand that alot of politicians are feeling the pressure on getting this thing passed, but the problem is they just don't have the balls to say "Hey, we can't do this shit legally". Politicians would rather pass it, knowing damn good and well that when it comes before the higher courts, they will tell the state to shove it up their ass.Unfortunately, I think you're right... It's a shame.
It's all OK with them, because it was a bluff in the first place. They knew from day one they couldn't come up with a bill that the courts would not shred to bits.
Unfortunately, I think you're right... It's a shame.
You get it after all.
Again, all good points... But, let's consider what happens in other countries for a second. I've been working in Europe (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Austria and Spain) and Canada for years. If I'm ever stopped by the local police authority without my US passport, I go directly to their local jail. There's no begging, pleading, bargaining, nothing... You go to jail, and you don't get out until you or someone can prove that you belong there legally. Sometimes, you can call the local embassy, and they'll send a representative with a copy of your passport. Sometimes, you'll have to contact someone from your local office to get into your hotel room to get your passport for you. And, if you can't provide proof after a few days while sitting in jail, you're getting deported.And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.
I agree to an extent, but that doesn't invalidate the e-Verify portion of the bill. In fact, it doesn't invalidate several portions of the bill. They can still be enforced without violating civil rights, unreasonable arrests or whatever else.e-Verify is probably the only part of the bill that will survive, but it will be similar to Arizona's. There won't be any criminal repercussions. They will simply deny your business license renewal after the second incident of hiring somebody that is not legal, or something similar. It will be state law that all businesses use e-Verify. And even then, e-Verify is only meant to screen new hires; not current employees. And the only real reason Alabama will be able to enforce anything e-Verify related is because federal law exists, and the feds want everybody to use it. You see, when you're passing law to work hand-in-hand with federal law that has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, it's going to be smooth sailing. But when you're attempting to circumvent federal law by passing a law that really isn't legal in the first place, you're going to get a big fuck you.
And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.
There's a solid 60-70% of this law that could still be enforced without all of the shit that Token, JR and others bitch about. Do you really scrap the whole thing over that, or do you fix it? I'm of the opinion that they should remove the legally contentious items and enforce the rest, at least until they can revise their approach with a more reasonable strategy.The thing about that is, ALOT of the shit that could "still be enforced" is law that ALREADY EXISTS right now. It's simply slightly re-worded and stuffed into a new package. It's sold to to every Tom, Dick, and Harry as something brand new, but when you get down to what those parts of the law actually do, it isn't.
Goat fuck.Our laws are not written like theirs. Plain and simple. Their laws afford them the ability to detain people the way they do. Ours don't. And it would be hard to make the case that in Canada, you were pulled over because you looked American, as would probably be the case in a number of other countries or regions. That is where Alabama's law is running into alot of trouble too. Again, laws are not written to where the ends justifies the means. The way Alabama's law is written, it opens the door to a fuckton of profiling. You have to have solid probable cause to do things.
Citizens are protected. There's no harm in being detained while your status is verified if there are questions. That's not a violation of shit. That's a protection from shit.
Fuck illegals. CITIZENS are protected. Not illegals. That's the way it should be. Can't spell USA with out US.
And that works in other countries because, more than likely, their citizens are not protected by any sort of Bill of Rights, or are not otherwise protected from this scenario in that country's constitution, etc.That may be true of Russia, Cuba and similar... We've just become accustomed to a broad/liberal overly sensitive understanding of these rights. I wouldn't mind if an officer asked me for proof of citizenship, as long as my DL was good enough. Just ask everyone... Then, you're not violating anybody's precious rights.
e-Verify is probably the only part of the bill that will survive, but it will be similar to Arizona's. There won't be any criminal repercussions. They will simply deny your business license renewal after the second incident of hiring somebody that is not legal, or something similar. It will be state law that all businesses use e-Verify. And even then, e-Verify is only meant to screen new hires; not current employees. And the only real reason Alabama will be able to enforce anything e-Verify related is because federal law exists, and the feds want everybody to use it. You see, when you're passing law to work hand-in-hand with federal law that has already been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, it's going to be smooth sailing. But when you're attempting to circumvent federal law by passing a law that really isn't legal in the first place, you're going to get a big fuck you.I understand your point, but I'm not suggesting that e-Verify be used for anything other than a deterrent. You don't need criminal charges. Fine the business or shut them down after repeated violations. The Georgia House just passed legislation that prohibits illegals from attending public schools and universities. That's already in Alabama's law. It might even be in Arizona's and South Carolina's too. Seems fair... Extend the verification process across other benefits and legal dealings as well. Invalidate contracts... No leases or rent agreements... No EBT cards... No welfare... Much of this is in the Alabama law. It all seems reasonable. Nobody's being singled out because everyone has to provide a birth certificate, unless you're running for President.
The "problem" is that laws are not meant to be written to where the ends justifies the means. Alot of it works on probable cause, intent, etc. And that probable cause cannot be based upon somebody's skin color, religion, nationality, etc.
The thing about that is, ALOT of the shit that could "still be enforced" is law that ALREADY EXISTS right now. It's simply slightly re-worded and stuffed into a new package. It's sold to to every Tom, Dick, and Harry as something brand new, but when you get down to what those parts of the law actually do, it isn't.Yes... I agree that some of it already exists. It's just not enforced as much as it should be. However, there is a lot of it that's new. I keep running back to e-Verify, but it's also any verification of citizenship that would be required for a number of scenarios that are not included under current law.
Look, I'm all about folks that are here paying their taxes, being here legally, etc. I have certain responsibilities as a legal citizen, and so should they. But you can't just conjure up shit that is illegal and pass it as law, and expect everybody (especially those involved in the criminal justice system) to be OK with it. You're putting their asses on the line civilly by passing it, and they're going to raise hell.I'm in complete agreement with you on that, and this is probably the 15% that should be gutted or re-architected...
(http://postbulletin.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451cc8269e20120a91a54c2970b-800wi)
I agree here but the amount of illegals themselves are also represented by that picture as well as far as being a burden on the system. Don't forget the root cause of this mess. It's two fold.^^^EXACTLY^^^
I agree that the way it is written is awful and is a drain on the system and is even unenforceable most of the time. But I also agree with Kaos in the fact that the concept is solid. I like e-verfiy, I like that it has the current fed law in it.
But yeah, it needs to be rewritten. I only answered YES because of the concept and e-verfiy. And that's the problem with these questions in the poll - they make you answer in black and white to very gray questions. It puts people in a bind to choose the lesser of 2 silly extremes. I can see why Kaos abstained.
I def have no personal issues with Mexicans. JR and I got in a lengthy debate with GarMan and I think TH in another thread a couple of weeks ago about how to deal with the illegals that are here. I favor Newt's method of humanely dealing with the productive ones who want to be here and work. To call anyone who supports an illegal immigrant law as a racist just reiterates the same rhetoric that goons like Sharpton and Jackson have used to brainwash people. Youre better than that dude.
I agree here but the amount of illegals themselves are also represented by that picture as well as far as being a burden on the system. Don't forget the root cause of this mess. It's two fold.
I agree that the way it is written is awful and is a drain on the system and is even unenforceable most of the time. But I also agree with Kaos in the fact that the concept is solid. I like e-verfiy, I like that it has the current fed law in it.
But yeah, it needs to be rewritten. I only answered YES because of the concept and e-verfiy. And that's the problem with these questions in the poll - they make you answer in black and white to very gray questions. It puts people in a bind to choose the lesser of 2 silly extremes. I can see why Kaos abstained.
I def have no personal issues with Mexicans. JR and I got in a lengthy debate with GarMan and I think TH in another thread a couple of weeks ago about how to deal with the illegals that are here. I favor Newt's method of humanely dealing with the productive ones who want to be here and work. To call anyone who supports an illegal immigrant law as a racist just reiterates the same rhetoric that goons like Sharpton and Jackson have used to brainwash people. Youre better than that dude.
They are a burden on the system because we allow them to be a burden on the system. I've been saying it for however long it's been debated on this site. Deportation is not the answer. I don't know how much money is spent on illegals in this country, but I know how much is spent deporting less than 1% every year. It's ridiculous.
Instead of spending billions a year deporting less than 1% of the population of illegals, how about we reform the system so they aren't a burden on tax payers? And while we are at it, let's also use the same "reform" bill and apply it to the millions of lazy ass Americans who are also a major tax burden on the system.
They are a burden on the system because we allow them to be a burden on the system. I've been saying it for however long it's been debated on this site. Deportation is not the answer. I don't know how much money is spent on illegals in this country, but I know how much is spent deporting less than 1% every year. It's ridiculous.
Instead of spending billions a year deporting less than 1% of the population of illegals, how about we reform the system so they aren't a burden on tax payers? And while we are at it, let's also use the same "reform" bill and apply it to the millions of lazy ass Americans who are also a major tax burden on the system.
Fucking this! ^^^^^I can't disagree wiff any o' dat...
I hear about all the "children of illegals" getting free lunches. Welfare? Fucking government feeding and clothing people who won't feed and clothe themselves. Make welfare a short term fix for people really down on their luck, not a lifestyle choice. People that breed while on the gov't tit? The aid ends immediately! All the government aid the "illegals" get is gotten 10 fold by American Citizens. Do away with the give-aways, and the only brown people here will be those that want to work. And I've got no problem with the ones that want to work, so long as they pay their fair share. Instead of deportation, when you ID them, give them a "welcome to the land of opportunity VISA" and as long as you work and pay taxes, you're here for life, ask for a gov't tit to suck on, and back you go south of the border. Commit a felony, back you go, after you serve your time. The system has been fucked up for a lot longer than the "illegal" problem, and they're not the main drain on the system by a long shot.
There's something very wrong with that, but it's not going to change. Want to know why?^^^EXACTLY^^^
Because of people like Obama and the entire socialist movement that grew out of Rosa Park's ass in the 60s. The more people who depend on government to survive, the more people government controls. They don't want a middle class, they want a ruling elite and a nation of slaves. We're almost there. When more than half the country pays no tax? Almost there. It's all going to collapse.