By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Strange (and dangerous?) Immigration law.

FootballFan on 21 April 2010
mirgro said:
FootballFan said:

I don't care if I would fit into the bracket for being a terrorist. If it was people like me, I would understand why it would be me getting randomly searched. As long as safety is paramount then fine, if people who looked like me where suspected of being illegal then so be it, search.

After all, if you have nothing to hide then why care if your being searched? You would have nothing to worry about...

EDIT: They actually do this in London, they check if anyone is acting "suspeciously" and question them and ask for identity.

They do this in Spain's metros quite often. A bunch of workers will get on and start asking for papers while people are sitting down. Me being tall, white, nlonde, blue eyed has kept them from checking me. They almost always just pass me by.

Well I haven't ever been checked either. Im White skinned, blonde Blue eyed and tall as well.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 21 April 2010
mirgro said:
TheRealMafoo said:
mirgro said:
This is quite interesting. It's even more interesting that it is supported by republicans, the greatest "keep government out of my life" type of people. I mean, seriously, how can you justify your argument about how government shouldn't meddle in your money, when it can meddle with your body as much as it wants?

To put it in the words of someone who is wiser in these matters than any of us:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

If a cop knows two blocks down a house was robbed, and he sees someone walking down the street with a TV, I think most republicans want that man stopped and questioned, even though the cob did not see that man commit a crime. 

A country is suposed to be about the rule of law. The people we intrust to make sure that law is upheld need some level of ability to do there job. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, an officer of the law should be allowed to investigate further.

I agree with you here. Except that your analogy is deeply flawed.

Not really. I am not saying you have free license to investigate anyone who looks Mexican. I am saying I think the police have the right to ask questions about citizenship to whomever they feel are here illegally.

Others in this forum as equating those two things to mean the same thing. I am not. It takes more than looking like your Mexican to qualify.

I guess where I am coming from, is if I did some data mining on everyone who stole a car, and I looked at the top 4 indicators that came back to help me predict who might steal a car based on appearance, I am not going to discredit a response because one of the indicators was based on race. If the top 4 were {“had a coat”, ”wore a hat”, “always looked down”, “Always had hands in pockets” } logic tells me that if I pay extra attention to people who fit that description, I will catch more people who steal cars. If what came back was {“had a coat”, ”wore a hat”, “black”, “Always had hands in pockets” }, not taking advantage of that data just because it’s not PC is… well… wrong.

 



Slimebeast on 21 April 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
mirgro said:
TheRealMafoo said:
mirgro said:
This is quite interesting. It's even more interesting that it is supported by republicans, the greatest "keep government out of my life" type of people. I mean, seriously, how can you justify your argument about how government shouldn't meddle in your money, when it can meddle with your body as much as it wants?

To put it in the words of someone who is wiser in these matters than any of us:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

If a cop knows two blocks down a house was robbed, and he sees someone walking down the street with a TV, I think most republicans want that man stopped and questioned, even though the cob did not see that man commit a crime. 

A country is suposed to be about the rule of law. The people we intrust to make sure that law is upheld need some level of ability to do there job. If someone is suspected of committing a crime, an officer of the law should be allowed to investigate further.

I agree with you here. Except that your analogy is deeply flawed.

Not really. I am not saying you have free license to investigate anyone who looks Mexican. I am saying I think the police have the right to ask questions about citizenship to whomever they feel are here illegally.

Others in this forum as equating those two things to mean the same thing. I am not. It takes more than looking like your Mexican to qualify.

I guess where I am coming from, is if I did some data mining on everyone who stole a car, and I looked at the top 4 indicators that came back to help me predict who might steal a car based on appearance, I am not going to discredit a response because one of the indicators was based on race. If the top 4 were {“had a coat”, ”wore a hat”, “always looked down”, “Always had hands in pockets” } logic tells me that if I pay extra attention to people who fit that description, I will catch more people who steal cars. If what came back was {“had a coat”, ”wore a hat”, “black”, “Always had hands in pockets” }, not taking advantage of that data just because it’s not PC is… well… wrong.

 

Spot on. Brilliant explanation for those who still don't get it.



Kasz216 on 23 April 2010

Well... law passed.

Obama looking into if it's legal.

About 90 days till it's enacted.



TheRealMafoo on 23 April 2010

Yea, and the thing that pissed me off the most, is when Obama said this is a good example of why we need sweeping national legislation, because if we don't, states will try and solve the problem.

Like somehow states solving problems is a bad thing. Man is Obama a piece of shit. 3 more years and we can forget about that waist of a man.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 23 April 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
Yea, and the thing that pissed me off the most, is when Obama said this is a good example of why we need sweeping national legislation, because if we don't, states will try and solve the problem.

Like somehow states solving problems is a bad thing. Man is Obama a piece of shit. 3 more years and we can forget about that waist of a man.

This is exactly why we have a federal government, though. To stop states from putting in crackpot laws like this.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

NinjaguyDan on 23 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
Really? Nobody cares? Not even someone who just wants a nice easy cheap shot on Republicans? I mean... personally I find the law disturbing.

Sorry, I'm late to the party. 

Sounds very reptillian to me.



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK