PDA

View Full Version : AZ


Whatfur
05-05-2010, 07:38 AM
"Where are your papers, meester?" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-04/show-your-papers-so-what/full/)

wreaver
05-05-2010, 10:36 AM
"Where are your papers, meester?" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-04/show-your-papers-so-what/full/)

From the article there is this quote...
As for the U.S., it is annoying, but understandable, especially in a country with 12 million illegal immigrants using the public services. “Who are you?” is a routine question: The necessity to identify yourself to authority is something that happens every day. You present a credit card at the supermarket and they want to see your license to make sure you’re not a grafter. All over the place, renting a car, at the bank: “I’ll need to see two forms of ID.”

In Toronto last year I had to show my passport to check into my hotel. You can’t check into any hotel in India or China or buy certain railway tickets there without showing your passport and having all your details recorded. So why should an Indian or a Chinese in the U.S. be surprised if he or she is stopped for speeding by a policeman in Flagstaff and asked for a proof of residence?

There's actually a very very important difference between a supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway versus a cop.

If a supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway asks you for your ID, and you refuse, then you can part ways, and that will be the end of it.

If you refuse with a cop, he may beat you, throw you in jail, or (if you really really resist) kill you.

A supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway is asking. A cop is telling.

The guy at the supermarket will not beat you senseless if you don't show your ID! (You just won't be able to buy the food with your credit card.)


But this type of argument isn't just against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. It's an argument against ALL forms of mandatory ID asking. Whether it being the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. Or a driver's license. Liquor licenses. Etc


Is mandatory ID asking common in the world. The answer is yes.

To me, it is irrelevant if mandatory ID asking common in the world. To me, I'm against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law, driver's licenses, liquor licenses, etc, because all of them infringe on (individual) freedom. (As an analogy, having rape be common in the world, is not going to make me accepting of rape.)

Now I am aware that not everyone values (individual) freedom. So not everyone will care about this.


For progressive "liberals" I'm actually not sure why they are upset over this. (It could be I just don't understand how they "calculate" what is immoral and what is not immoral.)

I've heard some of them call this Fascist. I have feeling this is not their main argument against it, but.... it's true, 60 years they would have called this Fascism. But 60 years ago, they would have called nationalized health care Fascism too. So I don't see how that could be the reason. Main stream politics today (whether left or right) is actually Fascist.

And yes, I know, most people don't have a clue what Fascist means today. My impression is that many seem to think it's about racism. It' isn't!

My impression is that when most people say "Communist", they actually mean "Socialist". When most people say "Socialist", they actually mean "Fascist". And you can't really say "Fascist" anymore, because most people think it means, Racist.

There's also a number of people who just use the word "fascist" or "fascism" as a slur, and pay no attention to what it actually means.


Maybe someone else will chime in with the progressive "liberal" reason to be against it. (I don't want to create a straw man. Apologies if I am way off on the progressive "liberal" reason against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law.)

popcorn_karate
05-05-2010, 03:28 PM
From the article there is this quote...


There's actually a very very important difference between a supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway versus a cop.

If a supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway asks you for your ID, and you refuse, then you can part ways, and that will be the end of it.

If you refuse with a cop, he may beat you, throw you in jail, or (if you really really resist) kill you.

A supermarket, a car rental agency, a bank, a hotel, or a railway is asking. A cop is telling.

The guy at the supermarket will not beat you senseless if you don't show your ID! (You just won't be able to buy the food with your credit card.)



good point. i'm in full agreement



But this type of argument isn't just against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. It's an argument against ALL forms of mandatory ID asking. Whether it being the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. Or a driver's license. Liquor licenses. Etc

this is where you and I, a liberal, will start parting ways. I can see an overall societal benefit to ensuring that people operating deadly weapons in close proximity to me and my children have some basic level of mastery of their deadly weapons before I share the roads with them.

liquor licenses, on the other hand, i'd be happy to see go away. There is not a compelling enough social interest to warrant that infringement on liberty, in my opinion. note however, that those pushing this kind of infringement on liberty are often from the right side of the political spectrum.


Is mandatory ID asking common in the world. The answer is yes.

To me, it is irrelevant if mandatory ID asking common in the world. To me, I'm against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law, driver's licenses, liquor licenses, etc, because all of them infringe on (individual) freedom. (As an analogy, having rape be common in the world, is not going to make me accepting of rape.)

Now I am aware that not everyone values (individual) freedom. So not everyone will care about this.


more good points of agreement - what kind of a complete moron could agree with line of argument?


For progressive "liberals" I'm actually not sure why they are upset over this. (It could be I just don't understand how they "calculate" what is immoral and what is not immoral.)


because we value freedom, and distrust police power.

wreaver
05-05-2010, 08:31 PM
But this type of argument isn't just against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. It's an argument against ALL forms of mandatory ID asking. Whether it being the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. Or a driver's license. Liquor licenses. Etc

this is where you and I, a liberal, will start parting ways. I can see an overall societal benefit to ensuring that people operating deadly weapons in close proximity to me and my children have some basic level of mastery of their deadly weapons before I share the roads with them.

liquor licenses, on the other hand, i'd be happy to see go away. There is not a compelling enough social interest to warrant that infringement on liberty, in my opinion. note however, that those pushing this kind of infringement on liberty are often from the right side of the political spectrum.

If you don't mind the question.... I've been trying to figure out how progressive "liberals" calculate what's immoral and what's not immoral (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5198). So....

How does a progressive "liberal" decide when something is an "overall societal benefit"?

Whatfur
05-05-2010, 09:30 PM
Wreaver,

Sorry, but you took a fraction of the argument and added hyperbole to make your point. Kezbroad may be rubbing off on you.

Pretty sure the author was just expounding on the reality that being asked for "identification" is commonplace. If you want to argue apples and apples then compare treatment by police in different countries upon picking up someone there illegally who has committed a crime.

The "hyperbole" comes with the painting the police as thugs themselves. I don't buy it, but even if I did there again you would have to make the same comparison between countries otherwise your argument is pretty much fodder. I will assume you have read a couple articles about how Mexico itself treats those in their country illegally.

As far as our loss of liberty, well its not a perfect world so we have to weigh the situations as they are presented. Taking stances just because they are libertarian ones... might make one consistant, but it certaining does not make the decision the most beneficial. I could make up a few examples involving hyperbole myself here, if you wish.

Lastly, the ignorance surrounding this bill for some reason seems to be getting larger and not smaller. I am sorry to say, because I have appreciated most your posts, that you have done nothing here to change that.

This bill only gives 75% of the AZ law enforcement the ability to ask for citizenship information when confronting someone who has committed an unlawful act. The other 25% already had this ability. There has to be a crime involved. They won't just be pulling people over willy nilly. God knows if that started to become the norm that we would hear about it. We do now.

The bill has little teeth and will have little affect on the standard operating procedure. It is more symbolic than anything just as I expect the resistance to it is. Los numbers seem to be on the side of reason (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=frontpage&pollId=90481).

I personally want a fence AND drug legalization. I would go further and say I am fine with amnesty for those here but no citizenship unless they go to the end of the line. Other than voting, I would say they would have all other "entitlements" that citizens have but maybe with a 1 strike and you are deported rule.

wreaver
05-06-2010, 01:04 AM
Wreaver,

Sorry, but you took a fraction of the argument and added hyperbole to make your point. Kezbroad may be rubbing off on you.

That's true. I didn't try addressing his whole argument. Which was due to a lack of spare time (during the work day) than say malice. That passage stood out to me, and I responded to it (in the little spare time I had).

If there's something you feel is the core point of it, please point it out.

Pretty sure the author was just expounding on the reality that being asked for "identification" is commonplace.

I agree with that. The demanding of ID is common place. I implicitly implied that when I said...
But this type of argument isn't just against the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. It's an argument against ALL forms of mandatory ID asking. Whether it being the AZ "Your Papers, Please" law. Or a driver's license. Liquor licenses. Etc

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

If you want to argue apples and apples then compare treatment by police in different countries upon picking up someone there illegally who has committed a crime.

The "hyperbole" comes with the painting the police as thugs themselves.

From a libertarian world view, they are morally the same. But like I said, I know not everyone has the libertarian world view. So not everyone will make those same moral "calculations".

I don't buy it, but even if I did there again you would have to make the same comparison between countries otherwise your argument is pretty much fodder.

My moral "calculations" of cops is NOT Arizona specific. It's to all cops.

On a world wide basis, the cops in the U.S. are a lot "nicer" than other places. You're not likely to have U.S. cops demand a bribe from you. And aren't likely to have U.S. cops rape you (if you are a women). Where you are in many other countries, these things are not uncommon.

But (from a libertarian world view) even a "nicer" mugger is still a mugger.

I will assume you have read a couple articles about how Mexico itself treats those in their country illegally.

Like I said, cops do seem "nicer" in the U.S. than a lot of the world.

As far as our loss of liberty, well its not a perfect world so we have to weigh the situations as they are presented. Taking stances just because they are libertarian ones... might make one consistant, but it certaining does not make the decision the most beneficial.

I suspect we have different goals. Much like progressive "liberals" have different goals to both of us.

I could make up a few examples involving hyperbole myself here, if you wish.

Lastly, the ignorance surrounding this bill for some reason seems to be getting larger and not smaller. I am sorry to say, because I have appreciated most your posts, that you have done nothing here to change that.

That's a very good point. I actually don't know much about the bill.

But like I said, I'm against it because I'm against all (physically) coercive demands for ID. It's not Arizona specific. It's the same thing that causes me to be against drivers licenses, liquor licenses, etc etc.

Whatfur
05-08-2010, 09:54 AM
Democrats now view bill favorably? (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/fox-news-poll-arizona-right-action-immigration/)


Governor Brewer tells Schumer to pound sand and then pounds Obama into it (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/05/jan-brewer-ad-crushes-obama.html).

Whatfur
05-13-2010, 10:31 PM
First Obama shows his ignorance (once again) and disparages a law he had not obviously read. Hillary follows suit. Now we have Holder who is here admitting and dancing all around the fact he hasn't read it either. (http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/13/HP/R/32846/Holder+we+are+on+the+right+path+against+terrorism. aspx) Go to 2h45m but all is interesting.

Whatfur
05-19-2010, 08:19 AM
Posner is a puke. (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/05/19/the_us_department_of_blame_america_first?page=2)

Obama has surrounded himself with many just like him.

pampl
05-19-2010, 12:29 PM
I've heard some of them call this Fascist. I have feeling this is not their main argument against it, but.... it's true, 60 years they would have called this Fascism. But 60 years ago, they would have called nationalized health care Fascism too. So I don't see how that could be the reason. Main stream politics today (whether left or right) is actually Fascist.

And yes, I know, most people don't have a clue what Fascist means today. My impression is that many seem to think it's about racism. It' isn't!

My impression is that when most people say "Communist", they actually mean "Socialist". When most people say "Socialist", they actually mean "Fascist". And you can't really say "Fascist" anymore, because most people think it means, Racist.

Sixty years ago national healthcare was also being called socialist (or communist), not fascist. During the UHC debate conservative blogs posted this old audio clip of Reagan saying Medicare would actually be socialism and if it was passed we would all become slaves (this was apparently considered prophetic).

I'm curious what your definition of fascism is, though. I understood it to mean: claiming national descent from a glorious empire (fascist Italy claimed to be the continuation of the Roman empire), military control of the government, co-operation between the government and the heads of industry and commerce, and harsh suppression of dissent or anything that could be seen as weakening the nation. Being forced to present your papers doesn't necessarily seem fascistic to me, just generally authoritarian.. I could imagine Stalin or the Khymer Rouge demanding identification too, for example.