PC keeps getting better: High School team's trip to tournament in Arizona canceled

[woolfe9999]

OK first off, this business with the Illinois school board is obviously absurd. Those people are unqualified fools. They seem to want to make some statement in opposition to this law; instead, they are providing Fox News fodder for righties to pontificate about all "those looney liberals." It's a self-defeating "statement." And worse, they are penalizing KIDS FFS.

However, this law is not as benign as some have portrayed here. It isn't limited to vehicle stops. Nowhere does it say that detention and search are limited to those situations incident to a detention for an unrelated charge. And the certainty standard - reasonable suspicion - is de minimus. It requires virtually nothing. Nor does it exclude the person's ethnicity from being a factor.

I oppose this law not out of sympathy for illegals. I oppose it because this is how a police state solves an immigration problem. I'd rather have the authorities target businesses who hire illegals than have cops detaining random people, be it in cars or out in the street.

I know this board is very emotional about illegal immigrants and I have a feeling that there are a number of people here who would support virtually any sort of anti-immigrant legislation, no matter how extreme. However, there are valid libertarian grounds for opposing this kind of state action. One need not be any sort of bleeding heart immigrant lover to not like this. I am not speaking for anyone else who may be opposed to this law, just myself.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

I oppose it because this is how a police state solves an immigration problem. I'd rather have the authorities target businesses who hire illegals than have cops detaining random people, be it in cars or out in the street.

I know this board is very emotional about illegal immigrants and I have a feeling that there are a number of people here who would support virtually any sort of anti-immigrant legislation, no matter how extreme.

- wolf

Never understood how having to show identity is like being in a police state. Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

There may be people here that would support any anti-immigrant legislation, but apparently there are also people that are against any sort of anti-ILLEGAL legislation, no matter how reasonable it is.

 

[woolfe9999]

There may be people here that would support any anti-immigrant legislation, but apparently there are also people that are against any sort of anti-ILLEGAL legislation, no matter how reasonable it is.

Aside from this, what other kind of anti-illegal immigrant legislation has been discussed and opposed?

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

Aside from this, what other kind of anti-illegal immigrant legislation has been discussed and opposed?

- wolf

Right now, there's another thread about an Albuquerque law.

Why? You don't agree there's rabid partisans on both sides of the spectrum?

 

[woolfe9999]

Right now, there's another thread about an Albuquerque law.

Why? You don't agree there's rabid partisans on both sides of the spectrum?

I'm sure there are. There are just far more on the anti-immigrant side, on this particular discussion board. The point is hardly even debatable.

I think my main concern is that there are a lot of self-described "constitutionalists" on this board, and not one has a concern about erosion of the 4th amendment, an issue that is clearly implicated by this law. I think if people are concerned about the Constitution, those concerns should extend wherever and to whomever they may apply, whether it is search and seizure of suspected illegal immigrants, or mirandizing suspected terrorists.

In any event, I am only speaking for myself on this. Other people might have more "bleeding heart" type reasons for opposing the law (for the record, I want the border walled off and slammed shut), and others might oppose different types of anti-immigrant laws that I wouldn't oppose.

- wolf

 

[Hacp]

You know, in France, first thing you're required to do if a police stops you is to show ID. I guess France is a racist country. We should denounce all things French, including "free" health care for all.

 

[Danube]

Sanctuary cities promising boycotts - high school teams canceling trips - if these sorts of things are all that happens then AZ is on solid ground because huge blocks of public support are going to AZ. The media is focusing on splinters and ignoring logs.

 

[cKGunslinger]

You know, in France, first thing you're required to do if a police stops you is to show ID. I guess France is a racist country. We should denounce all things French, including "free" health care for all.

Mmm.. Freedom Fries..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure there are. There are just far more on the anti-immigrant side, on this particular discussion board. The point is hardly even debatable.

I think my main concern is that there are a lot of self-described "constitutionalists" on this board, and not one has a concern about erosion of the 4th amendment, an issue that is clearly implicated by this law. I think if people are concerned about the Constitution, those concerns should extend wherever and to whomever they may apply, whether it is search and seizure of suspected illegal immigrants, or mirandizing suspected terrorists.

In any event, I am only speaking for myself on this. Other people might have more "bleeding heart" type reasons for opposing the law (for the record, I want the border walled off and slammed shut), and others might oppose different types of anti-immigrant laws that I wouldn't oppose.

- wolf

You are more of an expert in the law than myself. My areas of expertise lie in other fields.

That said, I'm not sure how this is unconstitutional. I can see that if misapplied then there are grounds for charges of civil rights abuse.

Nevertheless for the moment let's assume that you are correct. How then can the citizenship of anyone be determined, or is the act of doing so inherently a violation of the Constitution?

If not, how would you craft legislation which protect the rights of citizens, yet allows the detection of those who are not?

 

[Modelworks]

The same school also forbids trips anywhere that a passport would be required . This is just something the media is using to keep people watching.

 

[herkulease]

The same school also forbids trips anywhere that a passport would be required . This is just something the media is using to keep people watching.

Really?

I didn't know you can travel to china, czech republic or south america without a passport.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Really?

I didn't know you can travel to china, czech republic or south america without a passport.

For China at least (IIRC), I believe a tourist visa is also required. Funny how the school has no problem being forced to "show their papers" there, isn't it?

 

[waggy]

The same school also forbids trips anywhere that a passport would be required . This is just something the media is using to keep people watching.

are you a idiot? how can you go to china without a passport?

 

[werepossum]

Sure it does, people want to visit places where they feel welcome, not police states where they have to carry their papers on them at all times or risk being arrested.

Considering that this same school sent students to Red China and South America, this statement alone qualifies you to be president of Moronia. Together with your other statements, I see President-for-life coming your way. Unfortunately there is no salary due to an unfortunate short-term investment with a former Nigerian banking official, but I'm sure your political correctness will keep you warm.

 

[nick1985]

are you a idiot? how can you go to china without a passport?

FedEx yourself

 

[werepossum]

OK first off, this business with the Illinois school board is obviously absurd. Those people are unqualified fools. They seem to want to make some statement in opposition to this law; instead, they are providing Fox News fodder for righties to pontificate about all "those looney liberals." It's a self-defeating "statement." And worse, they are penalizing KIDS FFS.

However, this law is not as benign as some have portrayed here. It isn't limited to vehicle stops. Nowhere does it say that detention and search are limited to those situations incident to a detention for an unrelated charge. And the certainty standard - reasonable suspicion - is de minimus. It requires virtually nothing. Nor does it exclude the person's ethnicity from being a factor.

I oppose this law not out of sympathy for illegals. I oppose it because this is how a police state solves an immigration problem. I'd rather have the authorities target businesses who hire illegals than have cops detaining random people, be it in cars or out in the street.

I know this board is very emotional about illegal immigrants and I have a feeling that there are a number of people here who would support virtually any sort of anti-immigrant legislation, no matter how extreme. However, there are valid libertarian grounds for opposing this kind of state action. One need not be any sort of bleeding heart immigrant lover to not like this. I am not speaking for anyone else who may be opposed to this law, just myself.

- wolf

Since this law virtually duplicates the federal law I fail to see how any 4th Amendment erosion can take place, but even granting that how is asking for proof of legal status at employment better than (or different from) asking for the same thing on other occasions? Seems to me that if the Arizona law poses Constitutional problems then so does the federal law, with the only solution being abandoning any immigration enforcement except at the point of entry.

 

[Zargon]

Since this law virtually duplicates the federal law I fail to see how any 4th Amendment erosion can take place, but even granting that how is asking for proof of legal status at employment better than (or different from) asking for the same thing on other occasions? Seems to me that if the Arizona law poses Constitutional problems then so does the federal law, with the only solution being abandoning any immigration enforcement except at the point of entry.

yeah it doesnt make any sense since all they are doing it is requring law enforcement to check for required legal papers.

 

[herkulease]

For China at least (IIRC), I believe a tourist visa is also required. Funny how the school has no problem being forced to "show their papers" there, isn't it?

yeah I was being sarcastic. they require you apply and pay for a tourist visa. Vietnam does this too. Vietnam has a special "white american" price too.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

yeah I was being sarcastic. they require you apply and pay for a tourist visa. Vietnam does this too. Vietnam has a special "white american" price too.

Brazil is the same way and when I went in 2004, it had a variety of fees that combined to something like $300.

 

[Thump553]

This school district is in good company. The GOP just declined to have it's national convention in Phoenix, which was one of the three finalists, although the GOP denies the law had anything to do with their PC decision. They decided to go back to the same city for the third time.

It will be interesting to see how much blowback this breathing while Latino law will have.

 

[Patranus]

How about we ask the kids if they want to go? Seems pretty sensible, right?

Um. Ya. Fox News interviewed 2 of the players and they were very disappointed as they worked hard to raise money for the trip.

On a side note, if this is about identification, I don't know a single school that would take a field trip across town without identification for the students let alone a field trip to another state.

 

[dmcowen674]

How about we ask the kids if they want to go? Seems pretty sensible, right?

The undocumented ones don't want to go. Can you blame them?

 

[nick1985]

The undocumented ones don't want to go. Can you blame them?

There arnt any on the team

 

[theeedude]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ain-from-travel-boycotts-cancelled-meetings/1

According to the HotelNewsNow.com report on the subject, Smith Travel data shows that hotel occupancy in Arizona rose 2.4% the week of April 25-May 1 vs. the same week in 2009, but revenue per available room dropped 2.6% and the average daily hotel rate fell about 5% to $98.

At least 23 meetings have been cancelled in Arizona that represent between $6 million and $10 million in revenue, the article says.

"The economic impact is increasing every day and every week. Groups that were considering us as an option are pulling out of Tucson and other Arizona cities," Richard Brooks, sales director for the Westin La Paloma Hotel in Tucson, told HotelNewsNow.com. And groups that had been considering the hotel for 10 years or more in the future no longer have Arizona, the articles ays.

The Hotel Arizona has received cancellations from three groups, including the Glass Art Society's 2011 meeting, which was worth about $120,000 to the hotel, the article says.

Awww, that sucks 😀

 

[nick1985]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ain-from-travel-boycotts-cancelled-meetings/1



Awww, that sucks 😀

And how much is Arizona going to save by being less burdened by illegals? You are staunchest pro-illegal immigration poster on these boards, we need to give you a medal.