Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 22, 2002, 08:22:01 AM
-
We know the profile of nearly all terrorists. The people blowing themselves up in markets, hijacking planes and declaring holy war against the US, Jews and Isreal, are almost exclusivly Arab and or Muslim. They are funded by Arabs and Arab states.
It goes completely against reality not to profile Arabs and Muslims coming into the US and applying for visas. If we do not wake up real soon and confront the known sources of terrorism coming from the Middle East, we will be very sorry some day.
I guess some liberals will say we have to profile little old white ladies at the airport just to protect the feelings of people that actually fit a profile for a terrorist. We need to bog down screening just to protect somebody's feelings? Well one day these extremists are going to hit us VERY hard , and maybe after that day some of these people will wake up to reality.
We must use our known profiles for terrorists as a matter of survival. This is not a politcal correctness game, this is a life and death struggle that we did not start.
Now, since not many are going to be able to argue against logic, the only recourse for some people that dont like to hear logic or facts is to call me a bigot and a racist.
An analogy: If there is a known lake that is found to contain a toxin that must be filtered out, you dont then go to the ocean and start filtering it out instead.
NUKE
-
As much as I hate nibbling at an obvious troll, let me see if I have this correctly...
Terrorists = Bad
Terrorists = Arab
Therefore...
Arab = Bad
Ever hear of Manzanar? :rolleyes:
-
I don't think you're being a bigot or racist in your post NUKE. You are very logical and completely correct in your thinking. Don't count liberals out when it comes to national security. Liberals and conservatives are together on this one.
I pray that our representatives in congress are taking heed of the seriousness of terrorism, and will do what is necessary to protect Americans in our homeland.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I don't think you're being a bigot or racist in your post NUKE. You are very logical and completely correct in your thinking. Don't count liberals out when it comes to national security. Liberals and conservatives are together on this one.
I pray that our representatives in congress are taking heed of the seriousness of terrorism, and will do what is necessary to protect Americans in our homeland.
Les
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
-
How quickly we forget little Johnny "Taliban" Walker. If you don't think there will be another one of him, with possibly dire consequences for innocent lives, I think you're sadly mistaken.
-
As I recall, Hitler was rather fond of racial profiling.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
That's all fine and dandy, but they aren't talking about US citizens giving up any liberty for security (which is what the liberals in government try to get people to do every day) They are talking about probobly the only way to insure that 9/11 doesn't happen again. I doubt it would be 100% but I bet it would never get as bad as it is in Isreal. Immigration policies in this country have always been subject to change and they still are. Maybe the arabs that come here for an education could go back home and actualy pull their homelands out of the freaking 7th century.
-
Originally posted by Udie
That's all fine and dandy, but they aren't talking about US citizens giving up any liberty for security (which is what the liberals in government try to get people to do every day) ...SNIP
Whoa... explain, please.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Whoa... explain, please.
Cigarettes, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, cigarettes, social security, cigarettes, anything that has to do with "the children" campain finance, cigarettes. There are many more, but that's not the topic of this thread.....
-
Originally posted by Udie
That's all fine and dandy, but they aren't talking about US citizens giving up any liberty for security --snip-- Maybe the arabs that come here for an education could go back home and actualy pull their homelands out of the freaking 7th century.
How many AMERICANS of Arab decent will be giving up their liberty Udie. I have no problem with keeping tabs on foreign visitors and students. Profiling by race will not solve our security issues.
We should try to emulate the methods El Al uses to identify possible threats. They employ screeners who will talk with people waiting in line or standing in the airports. Nothing obtrusive, and they are very well trained.
-
Sandman
Would you feel the same after say a dozen crowded shopping malls in the US are hit by suicide bombers from the middle east that are here in the states under whatever false pretense?
Would you be against "profiling" then?
I say at that point, round up every one of them and ship their arses back to the sandpiles which they came...and don't let another one in .. period.
If the gov wouldn't act in a similar fashion, if they had your views on the matter, I'm afraid the average citizen would take matters into their own armed hands ...
It ain't profiling, it's playing the odds. Past actions have stack the odds for men of middle eastern decent to be the next terrorist. Could be anyone but odds are they are arabic.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Don't think they had nutbag suicide bombers in 1759 :rolleyes:
-
I think that you'll find nothing in the Constitution that limits the Bill of Rights to U.S. citizens only.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How many AMERICANS of Arab decent will be giving up their liberty Udie. I have no problem with keeping tabs on foreign visitors and students. Profiling by race will not solve our security issues.
We should try to emulate the methods El Al uses to identify possible threats. They employ screeners who will talk with people waiting in line or standing in the airports. Nothing obtrusive, and they are very well trained.
First off I'm not saying that I'm for this solution. I do however think that this is the best possible way to stop further arab terrorist from attacking us again. They can't hit us if they're not here. I have a lot of friends from Iran. I don't want to see them sent back to that country, they are as American as you or I after being raised here. They would suffer over there and I'm sure they would fight for the USA in a war against Iran.
Isreal profiles their arabs I guess, but how good has that been at stopping homicide bombers? Let a couple of them go off here in Tx and I'd bet a months pay that we'd start seing arab/americans found dead on the side of the road or in their homes or in the malls. (not saying I'd do that)
Sticky situation. I for one don't want any more attacks in our country. So I'm starting to think that we should send them ALL back. Like I said, maybe there'd be enough good ones over there then that they'd actualy apply what they learned in our society and lift that region out of the 7th century, which is what needs to happen.....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Sandman
Would you feel the same after say a dozen crowded shopping malls in the US are hit by suicide bombers from the middle east that are here in the states under whatever false pretense?
Would you be against "profiling" then?
[/b]
Yes.
-
So,
We gonna check genetics? We gonna ship Danny Thomas home to Lebanon? No wait he's dead, guess it'll have to be Marlo. Jaimie Farr! Send Jaimie Farr back to the sand hill he came from!
Are we gonna check genetics? Are you sure you can tell an Arab from an African from a Mexican from a Chilian from a Jew? How fast would you be jumping on this band wagon if we were profiling YOU!
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think that you'll find nothing in the Constitution that limits the Bill of Rights to U.S. citizens only.
Where does it say in the constitution that a foriener has the right to be here? How did Ellis Island ever close down if that were the case? Why would this have to be a permanent solution? Who's to say they couldn't come back in 10 or 20 years when this thing is over?
At the very least they should deport the ones that are here illegaly on expired visa's etc....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So,
We gonna check genetics? We gonna ship Danny Thomas home to Lebanon? No wait he's dead, guess it'll have to be Marlo. Jaimie Farr! Send Jaimie Farr back to the sand hill he came from!
Are we gonna check genetics? Are you sure you can tell an Arab from an African from a Mexican from a Chilian from a Jew? How fast would you be jumping on this band wagon if we were profiling YOU!
yeah that's why I have reservations and am not for this. It is appealing though. I would think though that if your a citizen you'd have nothing to worry about.
-
Originally posted by Udie
At the very least they should deport the ones that are here illegaly on expired visa's etc....
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Udie
yeah that's why I have reservations and am not for this. It is appealing though. I would think though that if your a citizen you'd have nothing to worry about.
Hmmm... I think Joseph McCarthy started off with the same sort of reasoning.
-
Let me restate that I'm not for this!!! I just think that it is the one way to be 90% sure that no arab terrorist would attack us on our own soil. I don't think it will happen until we have some more attacks here, which hopefuly will never happen.
I've always been pro imigration and I don't want to change. I do think we need to slow the flood gates though. Maybe no new imigrants for a few years.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Jaimie Farr! Send Jaimie Farr back to the sand hill he came from!
Finally. An immegration policy I can support!
-Sikboy
-
Sandman, the consititution and the bill of rights apply to citizens only. By definition.
We try to extend those rights and considerations, but nothing in our constitution requires us to.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Sandman, the consititution and the bill of rights apply to citizens only. By definition.
Where is this defined?
We try to extend those rights and considerations, but nothing in our constitution requires us to. [/B]
The notion of citizenship wasn't considered when the Constitution was written. I believe the Naturalization Act of 1790 is the first document that begins to define citizenship. At the time, it was limited to white males.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-
I agree with Udie. I'm pro irrigation too.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Sandman, the consititution and the bill of rights apply to citizens only. By definition.
We try to extend those rights and considerations, but nothing in our constitution requires us to.
Sure get all lawyery on us ;)
It is a very interesting question in my opinion. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set up the idea that all men are created equal. And for many this can be seen as an all encompasing net which would apply the princeples of America (as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation (briefly) and later the Constitution.
However, Jefferson also set out some of the limitations. Reading the entire passage refereing to the equality of men, we can see some of this: Originally Divined with Godlike wisome by Thomas Jefferson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
emphasis my own of course.
The Just powers of a the government seem to begin and end with the consent of the electorate. We are not qualified to extend the gifts of liberty and justice to those who do not have representation within our governing body. To my mind, this is pretty easy to understand. The US Constitutional Garauntees do not apply to those who are not citizens, however, binding laws passed by other governmental (and intergovernmental) bodies are. These would include treaty obligations, UN Declarations, and probably other things that I'm not thinking of right now.
That's just a quik overview. I've changed my mind once on this today, so I'm still very malleable on this :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The notion of citizenship wasn't considered when the Constitution was written. I believe the Naturalization Act of 1790 is the first document that begins to define citizenship. At the time, it was limited to white males.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Well I do know that the constitution states that if it's not in the constitution it's the pervue of the states. Maybe each state should decide to deport them or not.
-
Oh no... it's not up to the states.
The McCarran Walter Immigration Act of 1952 is the basic naturalization/citizenship law for this country.
Section 8 of the Constitution calls for establishing rules of naturalization, but I'm unaware of anything prior to 1790 that begins to define what it takes to be a citizen.
-
US constitution = US law
US law is only valid in places where the US has jurisdiction. That limits the reach of US law to the land mass of the USA, US ships and aircraft, the air above US territory, and the territorial waters of the USA.
Anyone caught inside those boundaries are a subject to US jurisdiction and thus also US law.
As for us outside US jurisdiction, please leave us alone.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh no... it's not up to the states.
The McCarran Walter Immigration Act of 1952 is the basic naturalization/citizenship law for this country.
Section 8 of the Constitution calls for establishing rules of naturalization, but I'm unaware of anything prior to 1790 that begins to define what it takes to be a citizen.
Does that law say anything about the situation that we find ourselves in?
The more I think about this the more I'm pissed at our congress/government. We had the effing warning signs for the past 10+ years that this stuff was headed our way and they did NOTHING to prepair for it. Both parties share equally too. Lousey sons of biatches are more worried about keeping their sorry tulips in office than doing what we actually send them there for. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
It is defined by the use of the word "citizen" throughout, as well as more generalized phrases such as "the people of the united states", etc.
"....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
All encompassing amendments such as slavery are more direct, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It wasn't until the 11th or so that citizen replaced "the people" from that point on.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-
Just for clarification's sake...the Bill of Rights consists of the first ten ammendments to the Constitution. These ammendments are there to limit Congress as to what they can and can't do, and only apply to individuals in an indirect way...by limiting Congress' actions, i.e. the law as handed down by Congress. If this is not so, please correct me.
If you've ever had the privilege of talking with men or women who lived during WWII, you will become aware that many sacrifices were made on the part of all. Business as usual was not the order of the day. If we were to apply the security standards of that time period to the present day, it is entirely possible that the internet itself would be shut down as an extreme measure. Game shows such as Wheel of Fortune would probably be censored or removed from the air because of the possibility of codes being passed to foreign agents, etc... This would only be a small inconvenience compared to the rationing of gasoline, and especially tires for your car. You were only allowed one set during the entire war. There was an especially keen black market in tires and electric motors back then. Hardly anything that we take for granted in times of peace, could be had except through the black market.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I hope it doesn't come to this, but I don't see why the present situation should be any different in regards to maintaining the security of American soil, if that's what it takes.
Sandman, what was Ben Franklin refering to when he made that statement? Was he talking about the Stamp Act or Tea Tax?
Les
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
US constitution = US law
US law is only vald in places where the US has jurisdiction. That limits the reach of US law to the land mass of the USA, US ships and aircraft, the air above US territory, and the territorial waters of the USA.
Anyone caught inside those boundaries are a subject to US jurisdiction and thus also US law.
As for us outside the US, please leave us alone.
You're fooling yourself, Hortlund. I seem to recall a Coast Guard ship boarding a cargo ship last year suspected of drug trafficking. The ship wasn't in U.S. water, wasn't headed for a U.S. port and had no U.S. citizens on board. That didn't seem to stop them.
Also... back to Fatty's point that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens... A good example is California's Proposition 187. The proposition attempted to deny schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants (non-citizens) and was supported by a good majority of the voters (citizens). The Supreme Court struck it down as un-Constitutional.
-
Only took 6 posts =)
wtg Nuke!!!
Kanthy
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As I recall, Hitler was rather fond of racial profiling.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Fatty
It is defined by the use of the word "citizen" throughout, as well as more generalized phrases such as "the people of the united states", etc.
"....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
All encompassing amendments such as slavery are more direct, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It wasn't until the 11th or so that citizen replaced "the people" from that point on.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's a good argument, but the Supreme Court says that "the People" applies to all in this country and not just citizens or naturalized citizens.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're fooling yourself, Hortlund. I seem to recall a Coast Guard ship boarding a cargo ship last year suspected of drug trafficking. The ship wasn't in U.S. water, wasn't headed for a U.S. port and had no U.S. citizens on board. That didn't seem to stop them.
Also... back to Fatty's point that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens... A good example is California's Proposition 187. The proposition attempted to deny schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants (non-citizens) and was supported by a good majority of the voters (citizens). The Supreme Court struck it down as un-Constitutional.
The question is whether I am wrong or if the US coast guard ship was in violation of international law.
The question of citizenship is irrelevant inside US territory. I suspect that US law is applicable on US citizens when they are abroad, but I'm not sure.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Sandman, what was Ben Franklin refering to when he made that statement? Was he talking about the Stamp Act or Tea Tax?
Les
I'm not sure. The quote is found throughout Revolutionary War history... even as early as 1755. Franklin used it as a motto for his 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm not sure. The quote is found throughout Revolutionary War history... even as early as 1755. Franklin used it as a motto for his 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
It's my favorite Franklin quote and I used it liberaly in the 90's when tirading against the democrats. We should listen to those words too, our elected officials don't. They gave us the "patriot act" that should tell us alot right there.
Everyday I move a bit closer to Weazel's camp of hate everything governement......
-
This is what we must guard against:
It ain't profiling, it's playing the odds.
By this logic we should detain everyone who is (according to the odds) more likely to commit a crime.
I think the people on this BBS are intelligent enough to see where this could lead.
BTW all white males with close cropped hair are more likely to blow up federal buildings. I can prove it too.
Christians are much more likely to attack Family Planning clinics. I think we should put up a road block in front of each clinic and check every man for a circumcision. Sikboy wishes to volunteer for the duty. ;) (just playing the odds)
-
Originally posted by Udie
Does that law say anything about the situation that we find ourselves in?
The more I think about this the more I'm pissed at our congress/government. We had the effing warning signs for the past 10+ years that this stuff was headed our way and they did NOTHING to prepair for it. Both parties share equally too. Lousey sons of biatches are more worried about keeping their sorry tulips in office than doing what we actually send them there for. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
If you check the history of naturalization laws, you'll find that they have constantly been "tweaked" to fit the current situation.
-
Sandman my understanding on 187's defeat was that it was primarily based on the view it was an attempt to regulate immigration at the state level, which is unconstitutional. (and also a reference to the legal requirement that children attend school thru the appropriate age (16?))
-
Originally posted by Udie
It's my favorite Franklin quote and I used it liberaly in the 90's when tirading against the democrats. We should listen to those words too, our elected officials don't. They gave us the "patriot act" that should tell us alot right there.
Everyday I move a bit closer to Weazel's camp of hate everything governement......
I've always have liked, "You get the government that you deserve."
I don't know who said it though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If you check the history of naturalization laws, you'll find that they have constantly been "tweaked" to fit the current situation.
Yes they have, that has nothing to do with my statement about my contempt for our government. I think it needs a good tweeking right now. You let too many people in and they will try and make it like home. They need to assimilate into our society like all the great imigrants of the early 20th century.
Now we have a tangled knot of a mess. How do we be fair in this situation? There's possibly a large number of arab terrorist in our country right now just waiting. How do we justify to the future victoms families that we could have stopped the terrorist by sending all arabs back home? How do we justify to the "good" arabs that they have to be sent back to protect naturalized citizens? I'm just a big city country boy doper who can't think of big solutions to HUGE problems. I do know that if we send them all back they can't hit us here. That doesn't mean I want to send my friends back to Iran, but I don't know what else to do to really stop the terrorist from hurting us again, and I don't want to see open warfair against arabs in the streets of the USA which is what I fear will happen if they start homicide bombings here......
I admit it, I'm lost and don't know what to do about this thing that has been forced upon us......
-
According to the ACLU website prop 187 was struck down because it usurped the supremacy of the US Constitution.
ACLU on 187 (http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news198/187.html)
-
lest we forget -
the worst act of terrorism in the US before 9/11, the bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in 1995 was perpertrated by....
...a blonde haired, blue eyed, white boy, militia type, RWer.
when do we begin the profiling of these guys?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
According to the ACLU
Uh Oh.... tick tick tick
-
The District Court ruling came in a conglomeration of four cases, including Gregorio T. v. Wilson filed by the ACLU of Southern California. The ruling, if upheld on appeal, would render moot the ACLU-NC case, Pedro A. v. Dawson and the State Board of Education which was also filed the day after the November, 1994 election. That case, which is pending in San Francisco Superior Court, challenged Proposition 187's provision denying the children of undocumented immigrants access to secondary schools as a violation of the right to equal education guaranteed by the California Constitution.
Which goes along with Sandmans contention that non-citizens are also protected.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As much as I hate nibbling at an obvious troll, let me see if I have this correctly...
Terrorists = Bad
Terrorists = Arab
Therefore...
Arab = Bad
No, in means
Arab=PROFILE
So arabs and arab-looking people get subject to more frequent searches and more thorough checks. They will still get through the airport lines quicker because the guards will not have to search 3 old ladies for each arab-looking guy just to maintain appearance of non-profiling.
Profiling does not mean prosecution. It is not related to liberties. Nobody suggest punishing people for being arab. If each one of us can be searched, the fact that some do not get searched as often does not affect liberties of those who do.
Of course profiling should not be used to the exclusion - otherwise the terrorists will adapt.
Sandman, I agree with your list of forfeited liberties except for cigarettes. You assault and harm other people by smoking cigarettes in public places.
Eagler: Don't think they had nutbag suicide bombers in 1759
You do not read much history, do you? Fortunately the Founding Fathers were well knowleageable of history and all associated fanaticism.
Udie: Isreal profiles their arabs I guess, but how good has that been at stopping homicide bombers?
Very good. Dozens of people trying to sneak into Israel with weapons/explosives are killed every year by forward ambushes, at checkpoints, etc. US media only writes about successfull terror acts. There are plenty unsuccessfull ones.
midnight Target: Are we gonna check genetics?
No. Just check his passport and if he is from Saudi Arabia or one of those countries - profile the hell out of him before issuing him a visa. If he does get a visa, make sure to keep track of him. Foreigners do not have any rights to come here. The whole point of having a sovereign state, borders, army and INS is to keep foreigners separated.
Constitution applies to legal residents of the United States. If you are a foreigner and outside it or if you are here illegally or if you are a part of an invading army, US constitution does not apply to you.
Of course rights are different from jurisdiction. Illegal alien may have no rights but still subject to jurisdiction (being punished for a crime, etc.)
miko
-
Originally posted by KG45
lest we forget -
the worst act of terrorism in the US before 9/11, the bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in 1995 was perpertrated by....
...a blonde haired, blue eyed, white boy, militia type, RWer.
when do we begin the profiling of these guys?
and let us not forget that the current investigation into the Anthrax attacks is not focusing on Arabs.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Sandman my understanding on 187's defeat was that it was primarily based on the view it was an attempt to regulate immigration at the state level, which is unconstitutional. (and also a reference to the legal requirement that children attend school thru the appropriate age (16?))
True on the first part. Not sure of the second, but it also violated the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 1... due process and equal protection.
-
Miko wrote:
No. Just check his passport and if he is from Saudi Arabia or one of those countries - profile the hell out of him before issuing him a visa. If he does get a visa, make sure to keep track of him. Foreigners do not have any rights to come here.
I'm not talking about Visa's or Foreigners. What about US citizens? Can you tell an Arab by sight? How many others will be detained because their skin is brown?
-
Bingo.
-
Unfortunately all true texts of the ruling I can find are pay-per-view, and I'm not quite that interested.
The only unconsitutional references (aside from immigration regulation) I can find are to the CA state constitution. This would seem to make more sense as it states, "...the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement."
-
Fatty try this one:
http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/government/187.html
In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from excluding undocumented alien children from public schools, section 7 in its entirety conflicts with and is therefore preempted by federal law.
I haven't started picking at Plyler v Doe yet...
-
btw KG, I don't think you're going to find many people opposed to closer observation of white supremists, seperatists and militia.
-
Check out the website I linked Fatty. Maybe you'll see some info there.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Just for clarification's sake...the Bill of Rights consists of the first ten ammendments to the Constitution. These ammendments are there to limit Congress as to what they can and can't do, and only apply to individuals in an indirect way...by limiting Congress' actions, i.e. the law as handed down by Congress. If this is not so, please correct me.
That was how it was in the early days. After the South got their butts kicked in the 1860s, the states had their power limited by Bill of Rights under Amendment XiV. Since all local governments are 'creatures of the state', it applies to them also.
Individuals can commit crimes or be held liable in a civil court for actions, but only governments can do things that are unconstitutional.
Go ACLU! :)
-
Yep. Though she cites previous rulings so it's hardly controversial, to me that's a pretty hard stretch for the 14th. It would seem enough to simply cite federal law as she did more often (appears from her ruling she is more comfortable with those, such as the disability act).
-
Racial Profiling=Add-hock application of a reactionary politically motivated addhesive bandage that does nothing...
-
whoooaaa...
i forgot...this country was founded by immigrants, and its ethnic diversity is one of the things that has made it so great (think outside the box???)..
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Eagler: Don't think they had nutbag suicide bombers in 1759
You do not read much history, do you? Fortunately the Founding Fathers were well knowleageable of history and all associated fanaticism.
Sorry miko, no I do not recall reading about any suicide bombers in my American History books. I think an Arab blowing himself and others up - was the farthest thing from their minds in 1759. Please enlightened me...
I was referring to our policy if/when these nutbags turn US soil into an Israel look alike....
-
the worst act of terrorism in the US before 9/11, the bombing of the Murrah Bldg. in 1995 was perpertrated by....
Yeah or what if we find out 911 was caused by middle aged white oil-men from Texas... Lets profile them.
Profiling does not mean prosecution. It is not related to liberties. Nobody suggest punishing people for being arab. If each one of us can be searched, the fact that some do not get searched as often does not affect liberties of those who do. ...
Or Miko, we could check a little more than 2% of the shipping containers that come into this country. Good Gravy!
Of course Sandman’s right... What blows my mind is Fatty and a few others that don’t know the Constitution is meant for ALL people in the United States. Wow. They taught that in HS civics class.
-
You's rite 10bares! Is a jus a tryin to pratis mi reedin.
Is so ignurant uf me to asoom givin slavry wus legul at thu time it mite notta been ritten fur al.
-
Of course a more intelligent reader of my posts might understand the point that reading amendments which state "citizen" to interpret all people in the United States is an incorrect method to righting wrongs. There is a system available for modifying the constitution outside of simply changing the interpretation of what it says.
-
Quote:
"Constitution is meant for ALL people in the United States"
Yep. And it DOESN"T apply to non-US citizens. I don't care WHAT some Lefto-Liberal US judge says otherwise.........
"Profiling" is not only Common Sense, it's Human Nature. Every SANE and intelligent person does so every day regardless of some dumb-ass hand-wringer law against it.
Face reality. It's about time.........
Cabby
-
Yeah right
Assume this weekend two or three crowded shopping malls are attacked in the US with "Arab" suicide bombers - hell just one mall ...
couple dozen dead, 50 to 100 wounded ... men, women, children, old, young...
they know for a fact it was a arab "college" kid
can anyone tell me that from that moment on you don't "profile" ( in your own mind) every single person who you haven't known for a good long time who looks just faintly middle eastern. Paying slightly more attention to him and his overcoat than say the Oriental next to him as you all go into a movie theater ???
Anyone? How many of you would refuse to go into the movie at all??
This crap (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020522/ts_nm/mideast_explosion_dc_3) is right around the corner ... desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Assume this weekend two or three crowded shopping malls are attacked in the US with cracker suicide bombers - hell just one mall ...
couple dozen dead, 50 to 100 wounded ... men, women, children, old, young...
they know for a fact it was a white "college" kid
can anyone tell me that from that moment on you don't "profile" ( in your own mind) every single person who you haven't known for a good long time who looks just faintly red neckesque. Paying slightly more attention to him and his overcoat than say the Oriental next to him as you all go into a movie theater ???
Anyone? How many of you would refuse to go into the movie at all??
-
No one is stopping you from profiling "in your mind" that is your right.
Institutionalized profiling is much much different.
We know more terror bombings in this country are perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians than by any other group (Abortion Clinics). I say we target anyone who vaguely resembles Jerry Falwell!
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"Constitution is meant for ALL people in the United States"
Yep. And it DOESN"T apply to non-US citizens. I don't care WHAT some Lefto-Liberal US judge says otherwise.........
"Profiling" is not only Common Sense, it's Human Nature. Every SANE and intelligent person does so every day regardless of some dumb-ass hand-wringer law against it.
Face reality. It's about time.........
Cabby
-
strange how some twist the facts to try to stick to their liberal views .. more gray when it's black and white :rolleyes:
-
You mean it's black and cracker, you mofo honky cracker.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You mean it's black and cracker, you mofo honky cracker.
LOL - you don't know me then, but thanks for the insult :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You mean it's black and cracker, you mofo honky cracker.
so are you calling Eagler a racist? From here it looks like you are the racist making fun of the way some African Americans talk....
-
Originally posted by Udie
so are you calling Eagler a racist? From here it looks like you are the racist making fun of the way some African Americans talk....
Funny, because from here you look like an ass.
Edit: Make that "ass-cracker"
-
Thrawn may be a racist but at least he doesn't kill fish, Udie.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Thrawn may be a racist but at least he doesn't kill fish, Udie.
well I was only able to kill 1 last weekend! But you should have seen the one my roommate killed. A nice 4 lb large mouth bass. This weekend though there should be a genocide :D
Thrawn,
now be nice and turn that frown upside down! Ya salamander :D
-
OK, I'm confused... who am I supposed to hate again?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
OK, I'm confused... who am I supposed to hate again?
why be prejudice? hate everybody it's much easier that way :)
-
heheh :D
-
Originally posted by Udie
why be prejudice? hate everybody it's much easier that way :)
Udie is obviously a "Human Racist"!!!:eek:
-
Some comedian once said
Originally Yukked up by some 80's comic
I don't understand racism. Why hate an entire group of people based on the color of their skin when there are so many reasons to hate people on an individual level
That's my favorite approach.
-Sikboy
-
What if someone bombed a mall? What if we have a general description of him? Of course, we get that description out there, so people can pay attention and investigate someone that seems to fit the description. This is a good thing, and completely appropriate in that situation. It's completely different from profiling an ethnic group as being possible terrorists. In this example, if it was merely suspected that the person was, say, purple with yellow spots, that would not be enough to justify detaining and/or investigating anyone who happened to be purple with yellow spots.
With the above example, a crime has been committed, and there is a verified description of the suspect. When profiling potential terrorists, no crime has been committed yet, or there is no verified description. Assuming that it is more likely to have been an Arab and subjecting them to greater scrutiny and suspicion makes that person (and anyone who might look Arab to Joe Security Guard) effectively a suspect of a crime that has not been committed and will likely never be committed by them. As I recall, in this country, you are not a suspect unless there is reasonable cause to suspect you, and you are innocent until proven guilty.
-
"As I recall, in this country, you are not a suspect unless there is reasonable cause to suspect you"
I think 9/11 gave us "reasonable cause"
-
Reasonable cause to be a bigot... :rolleyes:
-
Funny, really funny.
Cops have been racially profiling for years, especially young african american males in the ghetto.
Or if you are white and go into certain areas of Wash, DC after dark you WILL get pulled over...
But no, just because this has been going on forever we must stop profiling the arabs because they might get offended.
Open up your eyes people, the only reason it's come to your attention now is because the WTC attacks effected everyone.
But the ghetto... sheeit, ya'll don't even care.
-SW
-
I've rode with my brother in his police cruiser a few times. He profiles. No doubt about it, but it's not racial. It's economic.
You drive by him in a bright shiny (stock) Honda and he won't even notice. Drive by in a piece of toejame Datsun B-210 and you are going to be scrutinized. Bet on it.
-
Yeah, 'cuz everyone knows them poors peoples be breakin da law all da time!!!
It's just as much BS as racial profiling- but I guess it's ok since it's not the motive of the day.
Just goes to prove my point, profiling of all sorts goes on all the time. But unless it's the popular topic no one gives a flying dookie.
You might feel good about yourself denouncing racial profiling against arabs, but when the next meat bomb gets through security doors because they couldn't do a more thorough search because it would be singling them out... well, will you still be proud of yourself?
We know what the enemy looks like, but we don't know who they are or what they look like as individuals.
-SW
-
I guess it depends on the officer, SW. From what I've witnessed, the profiling leads to scrutiny.
Then, the officer still needs probable cause to stop the car.
Some officers go a bit thin on the PC. Others make certain that it's solid.
Depends on the level of integrity of the officer. YMMV.
-
We all profile every day! So what?
The danger is in making laws that allow profiling by race. A simple distinction, but very important.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess it depends on the officer, SW. From what I've witnessed, the profiling leads to scrutiny.
Then, the officer still needs probable cause to stop the car.
Some officers go a bit thin on the PC. Others make certain that it's solid.
Depends on the level of integrity of the officer. YMMV.
cc on that. It's the police officer's personal decision to profile. Although, they do teach it in police training (did a while back anyway when I visited FLETC)...
I'm just saying, it's nothing new and no matter how opposed some people are to it... it happens... but I find it amusing that it's suddenly the topic of discussion. People choosing their sides and some are trying to take the holier than thou road by proclaiming they detest racial profiling all the while they have supported it by paying taxes which fund programs in police (and other security) training to specifically teach people how to profile.
It's been happening for years, you all have been paying for it... but with the "new" attacks on America by those of middle east descent it's suddenly the topic of the day for the PC crusade.
Save me the BS that we shouldn't pay closer attention to those of Arab descent.
Like I said, we know what the enemy looks like- we just can't identify them as individuals... and when we do, chances are it's already too late. (example: September 11th)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Reasonable cause to be a bigot... :rolleyes:
from you, I'll take this as a compliment :)
-
Not aimed at you particularly, Eagler.
IMHO, racism isn't justified no matter how many buildings are blown up or innocent civilians are killed.
Certainly, we could corral all the sand-cupcakes and make sure they aren't a threat. The innocent ones that harbor no ill will against the U.S. will surely go along with it because it's in the best interest of us all. "Hey Akmed, Rahib, Dweezil... whatever your name is... you brown guys come over here so we can go through your stuff... good of the country and all... you understand... this won't hurt a bit... thanx... also... could you do us all a favor and move into this reservation we have set up for you... it has all the comforts of home and it'll make it much more cost effective trying to keep track of y'all... you understand... it's not that we distrust you personally, but there might be a few rotten apples in the bunch so to speak... your cooperation is greatly appreciated." :rolleyes:
-
Profiling isn't new to some of us SW. Do you recall the roundup of blacks in Boston after that guy shot his wife and himself then gave a very loose decription of a black man to the police?
Police in Florida were taken to court for profiling black people in "nice cars" for random drug searches on the interstate.
Both were protested heavily and successfully.
Just because it is new to you doesn't make it new.
-
Okay, but Tahgut... we know that drug dealers can be any race. We know that murderers can be any race. We know that robbers can be any race...
but we know that suicidal meat bombs are more than likely only going to be from one area of the globe.
So why is that when we know where the enemy is coming from, but we don't know who they are and what they look like individually- it's "wrong" to pay more attention to those "types" of people?
It's just the motive of the day for the PC crusade.
When I say pay more attention, that's all I mean.
You think people of middle eastern descent don't keep a constant watch on black males that go into their stores? You'd think they wouldn't, but you'd be oh so very surprised.
-SW
-
When I started this topic, my thoughts were to profile and screen people that are trying to get visas to enter our country, not our citizens.
I look at it this way: We are a soveriegn country. We decide who we let migrate to our country and we have every right to screen people that wish to come here to live or work. The US does not owe anybody anything.
We know that the terrorists that attacked us and declared holy war on us are coming mostly from the Middle East. Is that a racist fact?
Facts are not biased and it is not wrong to take action, for our country's survival, based on facts and known threats.
I dont know how anyone can logically argue against these ideas, let alone call them racist.
NUKE
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As I recall, Hitler was rather fond of racial profiling.:rolleyes:
Just an example Sandman, no offense but I want to get a nickle on this converstaion.
Why does it have to be racial profiling? It's not. There are plenty of Arabs as white as I am (been working straight graveyard shift since 9-11). Guess what... plenty of Black ones too. Oh wait... Oriental?? haha...yep, tons. As soon as someone says "Profile" your average bleeding heart steps up and starts ranting racial this and racial that. Well get a grip folks, racial profiling is not the issue... NATIONALITY.... even REGIONAL profiling yes, but give the racial thing a rest unless your referring to Sherriff (patooie) Bubba sitting on the Highway looking for old cars with no plates driven by black folks, then you've got a case to harp on. When people come INTO the U.S. ... whether perm or temp, buisness or pleasure, they damn sure BETTER be looked at when they come from..hmmm, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc etc... the list goes on and on. Failure to do so is inviting another tragedy, not that there's already another big tragedy in our future, but why not at least try to prevent it? I for one would rather offend a million bleeding hearts than allow a single terrorist easy access to this country. Anyway, if anyone thinks there no profiling going on at our main ports of entry, you are wrong. If you don't like it, tough. If you are against it... please please prove a better way.