US citizens being held as illegal immigrants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

if you just happened to talk to a drug dealer or prostitute on said sidewalk, you must identify yourself, as the po-po has RAS. it's not such a stretch to say that if you are at a la raza rally and are ethnically hispanic, that RAS is in place.

Like you, I am not a lawyer. But it seems to me that is quite a stretch.

[DeadPoolX 9]

In the early days of the National Socialist propaganda there was a very slow, but thorough infiltration of racial profiling - and other profiling -- (I'm not sure what to call it, but regarding Communists, gays, lesbians, Jehovas Witnesses, etc). There was still free speech at that time too. I don't think our country is headed down the same path taken in 1930 Germany, but I can also see how someone would make a comparison to that time.

The National Socialists didn't one day say "hey...let's kill 11 million people, okay?" and received cooperation. It happened slowly over time. But some of the beliefs we have in the USA about Muslims, Arabs, etc. are not that far off from what was used to promote the idea of filth infiltrating the German empire. There is propaganda out there now in the US, whether you choose to believe it or not.

I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to illegal immigration, but it just bothers me when people are so uninformed about that time in history.

I know there's propaganda in the United States. There's propaganda everywhere, so it's no surprise it's here either.

Perhaps the most important difference between the U.S. and Nazi Germany is that the terrorists who've attacked and threatened the U.S. have been from the Middle East. Jews never attacked Germany; in fact, the Jews were the ones attacked for years, long before Hitler ever arrived on the scene.

So whether or not racial profiling exists, the point is that the U.S. has some merit in being wary of certain individuals. Nazi Germany used Jews for purely propaganda pieces in order to place blame on convenient scapegoats.

Poppycock. It really doesn't matter whether there is a real or imaginary threat, there is no justification for profiling people based on their ethnicity or religious affiliation or any other common visual identifier that can be simplistically used to identify a group that in reality is made up of disparate individuals.

Awesome. So if the line between real and imaginary threats are non-existent (or at least severely blurred), what's stopping any government from claiming whatever they want and enacting whatever rules they wish?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think you get the point at all. Even if 90% of illegal aliens were, for example Irish men wearing shamrocks, it would still be wrong to assume that all Irish men wearing shamrocks were illegal and deport their arses.

As I said, either everyone has the same rights or they do not. As things stand, certain visually distinctive groups get treated differently. Probably less so now then in the past - but if you want to uphold the standard and prevent a very real descent down a very real, very steep slippery slope then the defense of the individual right is absolute.

[pedroh 21]

I don't think you get the point at all. Even if 90% of illegal aliens were, for example Irish men wearing shamrocks, it would still be wrong to assume that all Irish men wearing shamrocks were illegal and deport their arses.

As I said, either everyone has the same rights or they do not. As things stand, certain visually distinctive groups get treated differently. Probably less so now then in the past - but if you want to uphold the standard and prevent a very real descent down a very real, very steep slippery slope then the defense of the individual right is absolute.

agree, the simple fact of using physical traits to determine profiling is wrong.. how the hell do u define 'illegal looking'? because he/she looks like 'a mexican'? what does a mexican looks like?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't think you get the point at all. Even if 90% of illegal aliens were, for example Irish men wearing shamrocks, it would still be wrong to assume that all Irish men wearing shamrocks were illegal and deport their arses.

As I said, either everyone has the same rights or they do not. As things stand, certain visually distinctive groups get treated differently. Probably less so now then in the past - but if you want to uphold the standard and prevent a very real descent down a very real, very steep slippery slope then the defense of the individual right is absolute.

Of course it's morally wrong to assume an individual is like everyone else of their group, no matter what positive or negative ideas apply. However, morality, legality and security are often at odds with each other. Sometimes one has to win out (even if only temporarily) in certain cases.

If someone is starved for food and they break into your home, then the morally correct response would be to help feed them. However, the legal and security response is to call the police (or in some cases, defend yourself). In other words, what's morally right may not be the best approach.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's either absolute and there is a basis for suggesting that the US upholds the rights of the individual, or there is not and it is not. Slip, slip, slip down you go Sentinel.

Expediency is a morally corrupt excuse at best and as we all know, the basis for genocide at worst.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[fozzie 41]

I think that if you can speak english well enough to become a usc then you should be able to explain the situation, make a phone call and get you proof of status within a matter of hours. You should also be able to read any documents in english before you sign anything.

I'm with justashooter on this one, its a tiny percentage and mistakes happen. How can you not be able to prove your citizenship!

Did you even read the article? The person was 1) born in the US, 2) mentally ill, 3) unable to read or write.

I did read the article. Did you read all the posts leading up to mine? The context of my comments need to be considered.

[DeadPoolX 9]

It's either absolute and there is a basis for suggesting that the US upholds the rights of the individual, or there is not and it is not. Slip, slip, slip you go Sentinel.

You know life isn't black-and-white like that.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know that government must be held to those standards.

[pedroh 21]

I don't think you get the point at all. Even if 90% of illegal aliens were, for example Irish men wearing shamrocks, it would still be wrong to assume that all Irish men wearing shamrocks were illegal and deport their arses.

As I said, either everyone has the same rights or they do not. As things stand, certain visually distinctive groups get treated differently. Probably less so now then in the past - but if you want to uphold the standard and prevent a very real descent down a very real, very steep slippery slope then the defense of the individual right is absolute.

Of course it's morally wrong to assume an individual is like everyone else of their group, no matter what positive or negative ideas apply. However, morality, legality and security are often at odds with each other. Sometimes one has to win out (even if only temporarily) in certain cases.

If someone is starved for food and they break into your home, then the morally correct response would be to help feed them. However, the legal and security response is to call the police (or in some cases, defend yourself). In other words, what's morally right may not be the best approach.

so if this happened to you? you'd accept it as a sacrifice for the greater good of security?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't think you get the point at all. Even if 90% of illegal aliens were, for example Irish men wearing shamrocks, it would still be wrong to assume that all Irish men wearing shamrocks were illegal and deport their arses.

As I said, either everyone has the same rights or they do not. As things stand, certain visually distinctive groups get treated differently. Probably less so now then in the past - but if you want to uphold the standard and prevent a very real descent down a very real, very steep slippery slope then the defense of the individual right is absolute.

Of course it's morally wrong to assume an individual is like everyone else of their group, no matter what positive or negative ideas apply. However, morality, legality and security are often at odds with each other. Sometimes one has to win out (even if only temporarily) in certain cases.

If someone is starved for food and they break into your home, then the morally correct response would be to help feed them. However, the legal and security response is to call the police (or in some cases, defend yourself). In other words, what's morally right may not be the best approach.

so if this happened to you? you'd accept it as a sacrifice for the greater good of security?

It would depend on the overall level of sacrifice. To definitively say "yes" or "no" fails to take into account different situations, many of which would require an equally different response.

[justashooter 430]

If someone doesn't need to legally immigrate in order gain all the rights and privileges of a citizen, then anyone from any country could move to the United States at any time and live here. Given the objective of this board, we all know that's not true.

So where's the argument? There is none. Illegals simply do not have the same rights as citizens and because of that, there's absolutely no need to "uphold" anything. They haven't earned the rights of an American citizen yet. Once they go through the legal immigration process, then -- and only then -- do they have a case in which they could demand and appropriately receive their rights.

so we are agreed that "fruit of the poisoned tree" is a generally accepted concept in english common law and the American law that is based upon english common law. all we have to get around is the question of suppression of the 4th amendment right at time of initial contact with LEO. if such a limitation of the 4th is viewed as acceptable under "strict scrutiny", then we are good to go.

this suppression could be legislated, if we had a congress that was more interested in America's future than increasing the share of federal spending allocated to certain regions of the country that are illegal immigrant heavy.

Edited April 13, 2009 by justashooter

[mawilson 2,133]

agree, the simple fact of using physical traits to determine profiling is wrong.. how the hell do u define 'illegal looking'? because he/she looks like 'a mexican'? what does a mexican looks like?

[fozzie 41]

agree, the simple fact of using physical traits to determine profiling is wrong.. how the hell do u define 'illegal looking'? because he/she looks like 'a mexican'? what does a mexican looks like?

Careful, Bootylicious will have your Azz!

Edited April 13, 2009 by fozzie

[pedroh 21]

agree, the simple fact of using physical traits to determine profiling is wrong.. how the hell do u define 'illegal looking'? because he/she looks like 'a mexican'? what does a mexican looks like?

Careful, Bootylicious will have your Azz!

or more like Danny Trejo