The state of Arizona passed a law April 13 that makes being an illegal immigrant in the state a crime. The bill states that police can ask any person for proof of their U.S. citizenship, and if they fail to furnish such proof, they can be arrested.
This law, which is supposed to go into effect this summer, is widely unpopular and rightfully so. Issues pertaining to immigration have long been federal issues, not in the hands of states. Furthermore, state police and jails shouldn’t be burdened with the task of targeting federal issues such as immigration.
Police forces in every state already have enough to deal with as a result of diminishing budgets; passing a law that would further burden them with unreasonable tasks is unintelligible.
Following the bill’s passage, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police released a statement expressing the group’s opposition of the law.
“The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police remains in opposition to Senate Bill 1070,” the release said. “The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”
Many officers throughout Arizona and other states have also expressed concerns that the law will effectively reduce cooperation between police departments.
In an interview with Educationnews.org, Police Chief Richard Meyers of Colorado Springs, Colo., discussed his concerns for the law.
“Enacting local or state laws to compensate for the inadequacies of the national system merely shifts the burden to an already overwhelmed police community,” Meyers said. “Almost every police department in the U.S. is struggling with shrinking resources and fewer police officers, and we’re still adjusting to the higher expectations on Homeland Security in the post-9/11 era.
“This is an example of the worst kind of unfunded mandate to local police that would diminish our ability to provide basic, core services to our communities.”
George Gascon, chief of the San Francisco Police Department and a former chief in Mesa, Ariz., was another voice in opposition of the law.
“It would have a negative impact on community policing and public safety, neighbors (in Hispanic neighborhoods) would be more hesitant to report crimes if they think their neighbors and family are here without authority,” Gascon said in an April 21 interview with Newsobserver.com.
One thing that makes this bill so different from other illegal immigration legislation is that it allows citizens to file suit against police departments if it appears the law is not being enforced enough. Giving people the power to sue officers for not enforcing a particular law enough is absurd.
Arturo Venegas, a former chief of the Sacramento, Calif. Police Department, also disapproved of the provision that allows departments to be sued.
“Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 essentially legislates racial profiling, putting police in the middle of the train tracks to face an onslaught of civil-rights violations lawsuits,” Venegas told the San Francisco Chronicle. “No other law in the country allows citizens to sue a government agency for not arresting enough people, but under Arizona’s S.B. 1070, any Arizona citizen can sue a local or state police agency because they’re not doing enough immigration law enforcement.
“At a time when Arizona and its local governments are having difficulty funding public safety properly, this makes no sense at all. S.B. 1070 will hurt people and divide communities, and it will do nothing to solve the ongoing failure of the federal government to reform our messed-up immigration system.”
President Barack Obama addressed the bill last week before it was signed into law. The New York Times reported Obama said that “failure to enact immigration reforms would open the door to irresponsibility by others.”
Obama said the law would threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
If the president looks for one more issue to reform before November, it should be immigration. It is an issue that is above partisanship and one that is fundamental to everyone.
Andrew Taylor is an economics senior and may be reached at [email protected]
Once again another liberal crock of bull from Mr. Taylor.
Ahem…
1. All legal citizens and legal immigrants would have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide. People get asked all the time for some form of identification these days (I know I usually have to get out my student ID at least 3 times a day usually) so keeping your state ID or Driver’s License in your wallet or purse should hardly be much of a big deal to begin with (especially in the case of legal immigrants and people with student visas since they generally need to keep their identification on them most of the time.)
2. The officer would only be able to question you if they have probable cause, I have SEVERE doubts that they will automatically begin asking EVERY single Mexican they see walking down the street and to believe so is totally asinine. That being the case I don’t see much of a window for many, if any, legit racial profiling cases to come about (and even if there are you’d be hard pressed to pick a winning case since the burden of proof would have to fall on the people filing the suit which just makes it a matter of he said she said which would more than likely cause the case to fall in favor of the cop.) Once again legal citizens and immigrants would have nothing to hide and would most likely not draw such attention to themselves that would warrant a cop to question them.
3. Just because it gives the cops more work does not make it a bad bill. IF the feds actually got off their duffs and did something about immigration like they should then the cops still would have to have been involved at some capacity in order to assist them. So either way the increase of work was inevitable. If anything they should just see this as trying to nip their crime problem in the bud seeing as many cite the major source of crime spurring from illegal immigrants in some form (usually drug and people trafficking.) Once they start making progress I’m certain their crime rate will begin to diminish to a degree that makes work much more manageable once again. Frankly you would think they wouldn’t be complaining seeing as they’ll hardly be without work if they really do feel that way.
4. Don’t even get me started on amnesty, Obama would be a total fool to try to get it put into law. It’s all a greedy power move for votes to keep Dems in office, other than that it would be TERRIBLE for our country.
“This law, which is supposed to go into effect this summer, is widely unpopular and rightfully so”
Actually, support for the legislation is very popular where it actually matters: in Arizona. Rasmussen reported last wednesday that 70% !!! of likely voters in Arizona approved of the legislation while only 23% opposed it.
So why is it that third party observers like yourself think you can call the law “widely unpopular” and then tell the people of Arizona what they should do in their own sovereign borders when over 2/3 of the voting population is in favor of it?
Some points of note:
A democracy is majority rule with respect for minority rights. This bill will give police greater leeway to harass the state’s Hispanic population — something Joe Arpaio has been effectively doing for years. Hispanics, legal or otherwise, will be more likely to get stopped or detained for any reason, giving police a tool with which to enforce laws against one ethnic group at a disproportionate level. “He was an illegal” will become the new “I thought I smelled marijuana” when it comes to search and seizure. Hispanics will face disproportionate charges for non-violent infractions, such as marijuana possession or driving open traffic warrants, than members of other ethnic groups, thus marginalizing the community.
Illegal immigrants, already members of a marginalized community, will be even more reluctant to seek medical treatment in the event of an emergency or police assistance. Gang activity will go even less reported, children will see fewer doctor visits and criminal infrastructure will continue to compensate for a lack of trusted authority.
The bill will give police greater leeway to hassle transient and homeless populations. Those without IDs can be detained and re-located at police discretion, and this will further disenfranchise and marginalize people who are oftentimes mentally ill and seriously unstable.
It also affords citizens with the right to sue police for a perceived lack of enforcement. This incentivizes police to aggressively stop and search people, and will also eat up tax payer monies in litigation expenses.
One final note. A Cato Institute study shows that amnesty would actually benefit the economy, and it’s not the only study of its kind to suggest as much.
Overall, the bill is a crock that will further antagonize a well-established underclass and reinforce a parallel economy. Integration, not marginalization, is key for economic, cultural and humanitarian purposes.
^And once again the lefties provide hardly any substance. Only scare tactics and worthless jingo jango.
And where is your concrete evidence that validates any of these wild claims? Suddenly the cops are all racists right? Wrong, once again the burden of proof would fall upon the people claiming racism, not the cops. If the cop has probable cause then they are just doing their job.
They aren’t going to accost any random Mexican walking down the street, they may question one though if they happen to be speeding (but I’m sure they pulled them over because they were being racist in the first place right?) In which case if they have a legitimate ID on their person they’ll get off just fine (besides the speeding ticket.)
As for the homeless and other vagrants of the streets I hardly see an issue there given the criteria you’re using. If the cop questions them because they’re homeless they’ll take them in regardless, whether they’re a legal citizen or not they’d still be homeless no matter the outcome sherlock. And if they’re mentally ill then obviously that makes any sort of testimony hard to validate and they should be taken off the streets in the first place.
And that study is valid how? Amnesty only legitimizes the crime and opens the floodgates for future illegal immigrants and people-trafficking since they know they can easily get off the hook after getting a stern talking to from Uncle Sam. Meanwhile it still won’t stop the ones currently here from taking money away from legal citizens and legal immigrants in this country and sending it back to Mexico or simply pocketing it with no repercussions whatsoever.
Why is it all the left wing La Raza racists are lying about the bill?
It is not a “racist” bill. The only racists in this situation are the racial supremacists from groups like La Raza (you know, “The Race”, as in “For The Race, Everything…”).
“Giving people the power to sue officers for not enforcing a particular law enough is absurd.”
Given that La Raza racists are all over, and already announcing they want to NOT enforce this law? You’re joking right? It’s illegal in federal code to be a “sanctuary city” too, but since the Feds didn’t put a punishment into code, crooks like Bill White and Annise Parker have gotten away with it for far too long.
Zed is so cool. He puts more analysis in a small scribble than Andrew Taylor puts in an entire column.
The AZ law is smartly written, and I believe will stand. All the left can offer in response is RACISM, and the issue in AZ in not about race. Its about maintain a stable and safe society.
Obviously, Andrew Taylor is just another ignornant mouthpiece for the Socialist Democrats, or he would know that they have at least one drug releated kidnapping every 35 minutes. Andrew probably doesn’t care about that, but when it contrast with Democrats and their efforts at voter fraud by the personal maintenance of identification cards; well that’s an entirely different matter. Hence the racism calls.
You know that AZ is doing the right thing when other states are starting to weigh in, except, for the liberals, its having the opposite effect. I hope that Texas entertains the same bill come January, which I believe Debbie Riddle is already tackling.
One thing I would like the US to embrace is reciprocal laws with Mexico in regards. If US citizens immigrated to Mexico, they do not have the same regards. But even worse, the Socialist Democrats are looking at illegials and amnesty solely for their votes and nothing but their votes. Amnesty has been tried before, but the border was not secured, and it has cost us. Hence, we get the Arizona law, a rightful law, simply because the socialist federal government will not do its job because of selffish politics. Politics that will lead to our undoing if they are not stopped, and stopped soon.
white people standing on land their ancestors stole, declaring it to be theirs lollllll
whatever, americans deserve to suffer, imo
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you GOMM, a person who obviously has an issue with ALL white people in America. This guy couldn’t be more racist and stereotypical. Americans deserve to suffer? Where’s Patriot when you need him?
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you GOMM, someone who obviously has a problem with white people in America. Americans deserve to suffer? Where’s Patriot when you need him..
lol yeah where’s patriot, he’ll take that commie terrorist down a peg or two
but friend commenter, white people did ruthlessly wage a campaign of genocide against the natives! our Great Ancestors murdered and pillaged so you could sit in your air-conditioned room and tell the internet about how all mexicans need to GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT because that is the only way to bring back our glory days. how gross is that.
Don’t bring up that bs. That’s the slippery slope of slippery slopes. That kind of statement is the reason legislators feel like putting video cameras everywhere, for reducing privacy of any type on the Web and the Internet, for Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, saying: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” (http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people). It’s the worst possible line you could ever bring up. People with that kind of attitude tap your phone lines (see the NSA wire-tapping millions of American’s phone lines, which hasn’t stopped under Obama), and hasten the approach of an Orwellian society.
All from this filth: ‘if you having nothing to hide, why worry?’.
Your point being? As I said, if they have nothing to hide and they’re legal citizens then nothing happens. It’s common sense. How hard is that for you people to grasp? I still have yet to wrap my mind around how the bill possibly turns the police automatically into racists once its put into effect.
OK, I’ve worked with homeless populations. Many, many of them are mentally ill, but the few state hospitals that still exist aren’t capable of treating them, and there aren’t enough charity organizations to provide medical treatment, either. The reality is that most of the homeless are mentally ill, and there are more than you think. Go down to Palmer Station on any week day morning and check it out yourself, or better yet — talk to them. The fact is, this is the first law in the U.S. to make carrying an ID mandated by law, despite the fact the SCOTUS ruled in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada that you only have to verbally identify yourself. More over, Terry v. Ohio means that you have to have reasonable suspicion to be pulled over or stopped (“Terry stops”). What constitutes reasonable suspicion in the case of illegal immigrants? If you look poor and Hispanic? Please tell me, other than hearing them talk about their status.
Now here’s how this relates to the homeless: they don’t often carry IDs, for one reason or another. When you’re mentally ill, living outside and without a Social Security card or birth certificate, it might be hard to replace that driver’s license when you lose it. It’s just a fact of life. Historically, anti-loitering laws have been employed to manipulate transients as needed, although this has lessened. This law, however, which makes it a crime to not have ID, could be used by police to to further marginalize the homeless community.
“Meanwhile it still won’t stop the ones currently here from taking money away from legal citizens and legal immigrants in this country and sending it back to Mexico or simply pocketing it with no repercussions whatsoever.”
Um, legal Americans can send their money abroad. Are you concerned about this, too? Plenty of people send remittances.
As far as reluctant to contact authorities — it’s common sense. My girlfriend works with immigrant communities, and they’re extremely reluctant to contact authorities in cases of violence — even with children — for fear of their immigration status.
“They aren’t going to accost any random Mexican walking down the street, they may question one though if they happen to be speeding (but I’m sure they pulled them over because they were being racist in the first place right?) In which case if they have a legitimate ID on their person they’ll get off just fine (besides the speeding ticket.)”
Let’s say our police officers see a janky van full of Mexicans in wife beaters leaving a construction site. That could possibly be reasonable suspicion. Let’s say all passengers are legal and carrying ID. No harm, right? Wrong. Let’s say the cops also get them for a litany of infractions: expired registration and a passenger without seatbelt. Now let’s say they smell marijuana. Soon, half the van is in lock up. They did the crime, right? True. But here’s the thing: it’s disproportionate. If cops have an incentive to stop one group more often than another, they will have a disproportionate level of charges and convictions within that community. Thus, you could have Hispanics facing drug charges, or other charges, more often than other communities, even if they don’t commit them as often.
We’ve already seen how Terry stops and other traffic stops may lead to racial profiling:
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=_BvTdMns1akC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=terry+stops+minorities&source=bl&ots=lfNWsl0EeX&sig=habLO0nnMvcRaRXGCoTKuuYnwzI&hl=en&ei=oQXbS_6ENI2ENI_n3IkB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=terry%20stops%20minorities&f=false
2. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/dateline/2010/02/pittsburgh-racial-profiling-as-law-and.php
3. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/s98oday.htm
4. http://books.google.com/books?id=I1mMc6NtG2wC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=terry+stops+minorities&source=bl&ots=nlvQ2uXPm8&sig=sJlBmrq_jKmhAOwRurSCOQ-U1gE&hl=en&ei=dQfbS4nQKYXwNKLbiV8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=terry%20stops%20minorities&f=false
@BoBojangles
Amnesty is not citizenship and would not afford voting rights.
serious answer: it is the responsibility of the american people to protect and exercise their civil rights at all times. police are never to be trusted with the authority they’ve been granted.
hey zed, aren’t you from britain; CCTV capital of europe? no wonder you’re so willing to lick cop boot.
I’m glad we can at least get a civilized dialogue going.
On the homeless: Well thats what their situation has afforded them. It can’t be helped (hence why I said regardless of the outcome they will remain homeless if they are deported or not.) If they are mentally ill though the officer would be in the right to get them off the street regardless of legal status. It’s part of their job. If they are mentally ill like I said it would be pretty difficult to get credible information as to who they are let alone if they are a legal citizen or not. What I’m failing to comprehend here is why aren’t people using common sense in these situations? If an officer chooses to bring in a homeless person to the station, let alone question them then odds are legality of their citizenship is the last thing on their mind especially if the homeless person in question is mentally ill.
On Americans sending money to other countries: It isn’t a problem because at least legal citizens pay taxes (at least they’re supposed to.) Illegal immigrants however do not and they also do not face the penalties that legal citizens do face if they fail to pay their taxes. Yes illegal immigrants do pay sales tax on purchases but even then the total sum is only a fraction to what an average legal citizen pays in total taxes. I do not believe that that is logistically fair.
On the officer scenario: I wouldn’t see that as being wrong. Law enforcement to a degree has to involve racial profiling at some point (in the cases of man hunts you simply would get nowhere if you said a suspect was simply a 5,8 average sized male as compared to a 5,8 white male with blonde hair and blue eyes and some other noticeable features.) If the officers knew the place was known for hiring illegal immigrants and he saw some hispanics/mexicans looking like that it would be pretty hard not to arouse some suspicion. If they arrest the whole van though because they smelled marijuana in the vehicle they would be in the right since they would have to at least detain all of them at the least to find out whose marijuana it was (though I do believe in that scenario all of them probably would be placed under arrest regardless if no one would fess up to the charges). However I don’t believe the Hispanic community would be facing such lump charges since legal citizens in the end have absolutely nothing to fear, even if they’re complacent and forgetful of identification they’d eventually be able to be identified as a legal citizen if they are, it would be no different as driving without a driver’s license or insurance. Is it such an indignity to be asked for identification?
Most professional companies go by some identification system to access buildings and people have no problem showing their ID to a machine in order to get into a building, let alone students here at UH who have to use their student IDs to prove they are who they are be they white, hispanic, black, asian, indian, etc in order to take an exam or make a copy or get into buildings among other things.
Take this as you will but people seem to ignore (or rather exploit the fact) that because this is Arizona we’re talking about that the general illegal immigrant population is going to be primarily made up of Mexicans. If this bill is put into effect later down the line in California or even here in Texas it would also be applicable to other illegal immigrants (of which California and Texas do have) besides just Mexicans. If this bill were possibly put in effect nationwide you’d better believe that there would also be a lot of white people being questioned in places bordering the north if they’re an illegal Canadian or Russian immigrant.
1. Illegals pay sales, excise, title and FICA taxes, assuming their employer pays payroll taxes. Most fall into an income bracket that would make them eligible for federal income tax rebates. The real problem is the businesses employing illegals. If they don’t have them on payroll, these businesses are not complying with FICA. If they are not providing fair wages, they are violated federal laws. If they are not providing safe work environments, they are in violation of OSHA. These employers create the incentive for illegal immigration. As I noted, amnesty would provide a benefit to the U.S. economy overall.
2. Read the implications of Hiibel. You don’t have to provide identification.
“in the cases of man hunts you simply would get nowhere if you said a suspect was simply a 5,8 average sized male as compared to a 5,8 white male with blonde hair and blue eyes and some other noticeable features.”
That’s not racial profiling — that’s identifying a suspect. Racial profiling occurs when a race is disproportionately affected by police tactics. This bill could lead to further scrutiny of Hispanic populations, thus making them more likely to run afoul with the law — even if they commit less crimes per capita.
3. You have to be joking. We’re not talking about “Mexicans” but Latinos and Hispanics as a whole. The number of white illegal immigrants — mostly Russians in the NE, I believe — are few and far between relative to Hispanic migration.
4. “If they are mentally ill like I said it would be pretty difficult to get credible information as to who they are let alone if they are a legal citizen or not. What I’m failing to comprehend here is why aren’t people using common sense in these situations? If an officer chooses to bring in a homeless person to the station, let alone question them then odds are legality of their citizenship is the last thing on their mind especially if the homeless person in question is mentally ill.”
Mental illness doesn’t make you incomprehensible in all cases, nor do police officers particularly care about their mental well being. Clearly you have not visited a correctional facility or worked with such a population on a professional level.
1. I agree that those employers should be penalized/punished and do provide incentive for more immigrants to come to this country illegally. However I do not believe amnesty solves the overall problem. As i said it would only validate the act of coming into this country illegally and would more than likely cause more to come into this country illegally if they know eventually they’ll be granted amnesty just like the last group.
2 & 3. Is it? This bill targets illegal immigrants, not Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans. The language of the bill is very clear on that. As I said if the bill or a bill similar to this were put into effect nationwide then odds are police would have to look for some sort of tell that could help them decide whether to question someone or not. If not its pretty much worse than a witch hunt, its a futile wild goose chase.
4. Next time clarify to what degree. I would imagine if an officer is targeting a homeless person because they suspect they are mentally ill then they would have to be pretty far off to warrant drawing such attention. And you are correct I haven’t nor would I care to, frankly I really could care less about the homeless, its not of my concern how they ruined their lives or what misfortune could have driven them to that point and I have no desire or obligation to take on their burden. But of course caring about my own personal survival makes me a bad person obviously.
zed, i am saying something of substance here and not just trying to insult you.
you realize that he was talking about illegals paying into FICA and social security, right? like, they get real paychecks with money taken out for benefits that they can never receive. be honest, did you know that or did you assume that all illegal immigrants work cash-only jobs, without exception?
also, i think (and hope) you are being purposefully obtuse about the fact that the bill doesn’t TECHNICALLY specify illegal mexican immigrants. make no mistake, the only reason that the bill does not mention race is because it would be unconstitutional.
the spirit of the law is to zero-in on hispanics/latinos/mexicans. you know full well they aren’t asking anyone who isn’t hispanic for their papers; stop pretending otherwise.
i know that you don’t personally know anyone who is here illegally or even anyone who is poorer than you, but you might exercise some basic empathy like a human being, instead of acting like a snotty silver-spoon college libertarian.
And yet aren’t police sworn to protect and serve? If they ask you if you’re a legal citizen they’re being a racist and yet if someone mugged you they’re your hero and only hope of at least catching those who mugged you in the first place.
Ah catching on are you? If so you should know better that England is just as bad as America is as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Granted its not on as large of a scale but still rife with illegal immigrants nonetheless.
oh zed
when the police do a good job, it’s a good thing! 😀
when the police do something bad, it’s bad! D:
just because the police do good things doesn’t mean it’s okay when they do bad things!
okay, glad we got that sorted out.
oh hey duder almost forgot:
arizona just banned ethnic studies in their public schools:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/
also, telling schools to fire teachers with thick accents:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/arizona-to-teachers-have-an-accent-then-dont-teach-english.php?ref=fpb
it would be nice if this utterly insane racism causes a serious anti-republican backlash this fall but who knows, maybe people will eat this garbage up.
But I bet you make sure your doors are locked in traffic.
Well I don’t know about you but as far as I know people generally do keep their car doors closed when they’re driving in general. =/
Correction: locked rather than closed (though people generally do that as well as their driving.)
have you ever thought that your worldview might be unduly influenced by your crippling fear of poor people?
I don’t believe its a fear of poor people. It’s more of a matter that I simply don’t give a damn about them and I’m not obligated to do so.
there’s really no reason to quote your party’s mission statement at me, i am well aware of it
And my party is? You seem to be making quite a lot of hasty assumptions without much substance to back them up.
hrmmm a guy who uses “liberal” as a slur, defends any and all conservative legislation, repeats republican talking points, and hates poor people. what party could he possibly belong to?
are you deflecting because david accurately pegged you as bourgeois trash?
If you read anything I’ve posted on this dump you’d know I’m not a Conservative, I’m a Moderate. Why you may ask? Because you idiots give good Democrats such a bad name that Liberal pretty much should be tossed around as a derogatory term. I defend some Conservative ideas because they make sense and I feel they’re well justified and explained. Frankly it seems nowadays the Conservatives actually use their heads for a change, something Liberals don’t (they cry foul against this bill and yet these politicians should know better since they are politicians in the first place that this bill is totally legit.)
This bill if anything for example shows the pure stupidity of the masses, they claim foul and racism before the bill is even put into effect and yet who is throwing the most stones and making the most racist remarks? Thats right the people against it. I’ve seen more hate against Whites since this bill has made its debut than hate against illegals that wasn’t out of defense of the bill (there are definitely people who are hating just for the sake of hate but then there are those who are just pissed illegal immigrants are leeching off our tax dollars and killing actual citizens and yet our federal government does nothing whatsoever to enforce the immigration laws. Of course I’m going to be for a bill to get rid of the people who commit such travesties.)
And you say I should feel compassionate for these idiots? Let alone compassion for the poor? My family and I worked our asses off to get where we are, the poor have NO RIGHT or ENTITLEMENT to what WE EARNED nor do I have any obligation to care whatsoever about the poor’s problems.
Caring probably has something to do with a general sense of humanity that reaches across party lines, as well as the fact that having homelessness is generally detrimental to society as a whole. That you lack such empathy, or the logic to understand that having transient populations puts people at risk and causes undue societal strain, is indicative of your lack of reasoning abilities and emotional maturity.
http://slohomeless.wordpress.com/faq/#what_is
Once again I have NO obligation to care about the homeless. Last time I checked there wasn’t any national catastrophe because we have homeless people. In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression? You know where pretty much the majority of Americans were out of luck and had to live it out in tent cities and wait day and night in soup/bread lines? Sounds like homeless people to me. And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude. But of course not caring about the poor now obviously makes me a horrible person who no reasoning abilities. I mean come on, obviously it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that every poor person is entitled to my hard earned money that I worked for, not me the person who actually did the work. Obviously.
EDIT: But of course not caring about the poor now obviously makes me a horrible person who has no reasoning abilities
Bloody typographical errors.
Hahah you get so angry over nonsense.
you could have just said this and left it at that.
“In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression?”
What chain of logic is this? It literally makes no sense.
“And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude.”
Literally because of government intervention.
I don’t think he means “beneficial” per se, but America sure as hell cannot be a place where EVERYONE is wealthy. Who would perform the tasks which we take for granted and consider “menial”?
There’d be a virtual hole in the service industry. So, it actually is a “Can’t have your cake and eat it” type of situation.
And the government intervention I believe you are speaking of was good at the time, but the fat cats in Washington, Democrat AND Republican, let the system become so bloated and expanded it so vastly that they are fiscally irresponsible in spending. Need I mention the $400 wheelchair that Congress paid (a price they set,btw) $1,200 for??
he said “homeless”, not working poor. zed’s saying that having a high rate of homelessness (and therefore unemployment because there is a crazy high correlation between the two) is a positive thing for the economy.
he thought the great depression was when the economy was strong in america. he literally doesn’t understand 10th grade history.
i mean, i know he shares your views and everything but why do you want to throw your support behind a guy who’s clearly never even watched a movie about the 1930’s.
Ahh, I see. I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with him, just seeking a it of clarification in what he means. He may share some of my views, but that has no bearing on my last comment. =]
Learn to read. I never said anything that can come close to correlating that The Great Depression was good for the economy.
“In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression? You know where pretty much the majority of Americans were out of luck and had to live it out in tent cities and wait day and night in soup/bread lines? Sounds like homeless people to me. And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude.”
CTRL+F, hmm no mention of the word economy at all in there.
right, you said “society”. my bad, what you said totally makes sense now.
do you wonder why no one is backing you up on this?
(it is because you are the universal toilet of the ages)
Yet your claim still makes absolutely no sense.
When you say, “last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression?,” it appears as though you cite the Great Depression as a reason why homelessness is “beneficial.”
For instance, if I said, “Magnetism is a powerful force of nature, perhaps you’ve heard about a little thing called the magnetic poles?” you would think they were correlated.
Meh, whatever. In the end I know for a fact this bill will pass and its legitimate. End of discussion.
BTW, once again learn to read. If you actually took the time to process my claim you’d understand it.
So let me break it down for you: During the Great Depression quite a bit if not most of society was homeless during that time, what happened afterwards? Americans took from that experience to better their lives and not take as much for granted. To say that experience was NOT beneficial whatsoever to American society is pure nonsense. If you still can’t figure that out then you’re simply beyond help.
Your claim was that homelessness, not the Great Depression, was beneficial. You merely cited the Depression as an example.
Please provide evidence that homelessness is good for society.
i’d explain how FDR expanded the role of the federal government to assist the jobless and destitute and the new jobs created by WWII but i honestly think you have a learning disability. instead of actually being aware of historical events and their impact, you create this retarded narrative about AMERICAN GUMPTION and oh god you are depressing.
this law will only serve to strengthen arizona’s reputation as a flyover state. it will have no impact on the only places in the US worth living in (the northeast, california, parts of oregon)
oh and
is something that is said only by the dullest and fattest people
Like I said, if you can’t figure it out then you’re simply beyond help. The homeless serve as a deterrent and as an example for something not to strive for in life to our society (or if in the case of The Great Depression being homeless was a motivator for people who became homeless to work harder once new jobs were created by the government and the war effort.) Its all common sense. Then again common sense seems to be something all Liberals seem to lack so why am I not surprised?
Anyways I’m done arguing with you twits since you lack common sense and reading comprehension (seriously, I’ve yet to see concrete proof that says all officers will become racists and act out of racial prejudice once the bill is put into effect.) The bill is going to be put into effect and its a legitimate bill so even if they try to take it into the courts to have the language and scope of the bill properly interpreted it should still stand. End of discussion (or not, I could care less. Go argue with a wall if you’re that desperate.)
lol
lol
lolllllllll