"I just said I had no problem woith profilling. Take race into account."

Aaaaaaand Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez both just turned over in their graves...

Seriously, Draug?

Why?

Are you insinuating that someone of a different color is more likely to commit a crime on the basis of their being that color?

"As far as ID, everyone should have a state ID. Carry it if you are legal and when a cop asks for it, show it. If you don't you are assumed to be illegal."

1. Suppose you're legal and you lose your driver's license/ID?
2. Suppose you are driving without an ID/license (jail, yes, but deportation?)
3. You just made the SS's day...ah, "Show me your papers!" back again...

"Are you insinuating that someone of a different color is more likely to commit a crime on the basis of their being that color?"

No, I think he's very clearly saying that someone who is Hispanic is more likely to be from Mexico than someone who is White or Black.

Now, I don't agree that's justification for racial profiling, but there's no reason to twist his words.

obiwanobiwan, do you seriously think that if you're caught out and about without an ID they'll just throw you in a van and drop you off in Sonora? It's just a way to kick-start the investigation, they still have to go through the process in the United States.

"do you seriously think that if you're caught out and about without an ID they'll just throw you in a van and drop you off in Sonora?"

*I* wasn't the one who said...

""As far as ID, everyone should have a state ID. Carry it if you are legal and when a cop asks for it, show it. If you don't you are assumed to be illegal.""

By that logic...

I have a friend who habitually forgets her wallet places. Luckily, she's white, but I would hate to think that mild absentmindedness could go from a minor inconvenience to an investigation which could lead to deportation. Assuming someone is illegal for not having ID is like assuming I shoplifted if I walk out of a store without buying anything.

Well, at least *I* wouldn't have to put up with this police state nonsense, seeing as how I'm white at all. What the hell is those Hispanics' problem, anyway, being Hispanic? It's their fault for not registering to have their races changed or saving up for some of that Michael Jackson surgery.

Seriously, I'm even more sure that I'm not voting Republican anymore than I was when this thread started.

Oh, and don't forget: if your immigration status is called into question, it's not treated as a *criminal* matter. It's an *administrative* matter. That kind of undercuts the rhetoric about all illegals being criminals, but it's got an important real-world consequence, too: no right to counsel. You get picked up for "being in the country illegally," you'd better be able to afford your own lawyer. One will not be provided for you.

@obi

"("Unintellectual" is not a real word, by the way, so yeah...if you can say "please don't post "arguments" like this--on a flimsy justification, *I* can say "you probably shouldn't bring up the quality or "unintellectual" level of arguments when your own phrasing isn't exactly Nobel-worthy, either...)"

You know who was famous for making up words? Shakespeare.

"Just because some minor terms of the now 160-odd year old treaty haven't been enforced does not mean the treaty is void or America's possession of the southwest is illegal."

Minor terms? Yeah about as "minor" as the Indian treaties that were systematically violated. The land belonged to the Mexican nationals living there, they were displaced without compensation. I fail to see why Chicanos can be treated like aliens on their own land under the pretense of 'enforcing the law' but the US can never be held to account for its complete disregard for the rights and property of those who were displaced.

Furthermore, the Mexican war was a war of aggression and territorial aggrandizement through aggression is unlawful as per international law. But that pesky law is "minor" too.

"If Poland has not fulfilled all the terms of its treaty obligations should it give its western territories back to Germany?"

What treaty obligations? Does the 1990 border treaty call for any 'treaty obligations' on the part of the Poles aside from recognition of the border?

Nobody should apologize for calling the GOP out for their extreme anti-intellectualism. Anybody who knows anything is inherently not trusted. Which is why the GOP attacks science, universities, educators, people who speak foreign languages, and basically anybody who uses their brain for anything other than shooting guns and preaching the gospel.

"Furthermore, the Mexican war was a war of aggression and territorial aggrandizement through aggression is unlawful as per international law. But that pesky law is "minor" too."

The norm that states cannot lawfully engage in wars of aggression is only around 100 years old. You can apply the new norm as a criticism of the Mexican War through the context of our own time, but when the war and treaty took place there was nothing inherently illegitimate about it from an international law perspective. You can make a moral argument in retroactively applying modern norms and values to the past, but not a legal one.

"Minor terms? Yeah about as "minor" as the Indian treaties that were systematically violated. The land belonged to the Mexican nationals living there, they were displaced without compensation."

Yeah, compared to the cession of what must be close to a fifth of the continent those are minor terms. And if the United States didn't live up to its obligations then the recourse for those affected is to sue, not for Mexico to snatch the southwest. This land was ceded, not pawned.

"I fail to see why Chicanos can be treated like aliens on their own land under the pretense of 'enforcing the law' but the US can never be held to account for its complete disregard for the rights and property of those who were displaced."

If they're citizens of the United States they're treated as such. If they're citizens of Mexico then they're treated as citizens of Mexico. There's also the practical difficulty in finding who is actually entitled to the compensation for something that happened in the 19th century. And if there's a statute of limitations on these things there's really nothing to be done. That may sound harsh, but you can't realistically have a system where people are suing for damages done to people who lived 160 years ago.

As for the Germany-Poland thing, it was a hypothetical example. If, hypothetically, the treaty said the Poles must compensate the ethnic Germans who had to leave after WWII, then by your logic if Poland didn't do that then Germany could claim those lands again. I doubt you'd support that, and you'd be right. It's the same thing with regards to the southwest. Mexico ceded the land. It's over unless and until a new treaty changes things.

Immigration policy is screwed up enough without getting into who owned the land however long ago. It's a rather embarrassing human rights issue right now.

Obi, let me get this straight, you are mad that someone is trying to enforce immigration laws? I suppose if someone was trying to catch a murderer or a rapist that would really fire you up to? A crime is a crime reguardless of the severity, and for the most part have reasonable punishment. They come over without permission, we send them back. I've gotten a Passport to 2 countries and it was a quick process, theres no reason someone in another country can't do it.

I'd like to draw attention back to Obie's initial argument about all of us coming here illegally against the wills of native Americans.

This analogy is flawed, in that the natives welcomed the Europeans (in S. America, they believed the conquerors were gods, in N. America, they helped them with trade and whatnot), and when the native Americans did resist (as both north and south American natives did, eventually, resist), the "immigrants" whooped their tails (and because of the result, I think "conquerors" would be a better term than immigrants, especially since that was the intent from the beginning).

Illegal immigrants into America today are not welcomed by leadership, and when America resists immigrants today, America wins. See, if the native Americans had had boom sticks and small pox infested blankets and believed in Jesus instead of silly sun gods, they could have repelled the illegal immigrants. When the illegals of today start trying to force us off our land and sign treaties with us whereby we give them Texas and they give us some beads, then we will no longer be able to call them "illegal immigrants" but rather "invaders" and "conquerors!"

The analogy is humorous at times and certainly pithy, but it is by no means without some fundamental flaws.

TMWCBM: We're talking about why the laws suck. Pay attention.

If thats you case I should be able to rape you and murder your family with no consequence, at least that what your logic suggests.

The idea that the Mexica welcomed Cortes as a god is a myth which has no basis in fact.

"This analogy is flawed, in that the natives welcomed the Europeans"

It is not flawed because the US government also *welcomed* Mexican guestworkers for decades before suddenly deciding in the 1920s that they couldn't handle anymore, and then reinvited them with the Bracero program.

There were no laws restricting Mexican immigration for decades after the border was "agreed" upon, with raids occurring on both sides. Restrictions on Mexican immigration are entirely arbitrary based on the political whims of the US leadership.

I stand corrected.

Although I do think a major difference is firepower to enforce will, a difference true then and true today.

Are you seriously drawing a parallel between rape and illegal immigration?

Bring that legal positivist shit somewhere else. We're arguing at the margins in here.

"The norm that states cannot lawfully engage in wars of aggression is only around 100 years old. You can apply the new norm as a criticism of the Mexican War through the context of our own time, but when the war and treaty took place there was nothing inherently illegitimate about it from an international law perspective. You can make a moral argument in retroactively applying modern norms and values to the past, but not a legal one."

The boundary can be regarded as provisional because the terms of the treaty have not been enforced, including the citizenship provisions, and the boundary itself was not enforced until the 1920s. Chicano nationals have sued for land titles, to no avail. They even set up a special court with which to deal with Chicano land claims. Anyway there is no federal statute of limitation on land title claims.

"This land was ceded, not pawned."

The annexation of Texas itself was illegal as it was not done by treaty. After the war Texas acquired much of what is now New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. If US ownership of Texas is illegal than how are its subsequent conquests via Texas legal?

"Although I do think a major difference is firepower to enforce will, a difference true then and true today."

So your solution is for Mexico to declare war on the United States. Thanks for the input.

When you come to America illegally, it's like you're RAPING AMERICA.

Remember what I said about the tragedy of going Too Far LEft or Too Far Right?

Meed Putin33 and AWB or (I hope) the sort of pastiche of that sort of Far Right idiocy he has going on...seriously, I can't side with any of the latest comments...

Do any of you live in Texas or Arizona?

Thucy lived in Texas...though I think he said he left...

I went to Arizona, once, and all I can say about it--

It's red...it looks like Mars...it's 120 degrees...

And if anywhere was ever capable of making me actually miss Southern California with a passion... ;)

obi, you're breaking up there. I think we're losing you. Type slower.

I have a hard time believing Obi is an English major. That was utter gibberish.