As far as the turnpike being paid for, it is not free to operate. The "free roads" you enjoy are paid for by other Mass taxpayers to the tune of a hundred million in FY 2010, including 65 million dollars for snow and ice control. Making the Pike free means that people like me who almost never use that road are subsidizing more of your travel costs. I'm actually cool with that, but the same logic should be applied to public transit
The same could be said for other roads. I rarely or never use most of the roads here, yet I still pay for their upkeep. The original purpose of the tolls was to pay for the construction of the Pike, which has long since been satisfied. Anything since is to pay for a) the self-perpetuating Pike bureaucracy, and b) bring in revenue for the state. We all pay for stuff we rarely or never use ourselves. I'd be surprised (but I'm uninformed; feel free to prove me wrong) if public transit didn't receive some sort of public support.
As for there never being budget cuts, highway shows this to be false.
I wouldn't say there have been no highway budget cuts. In fact, that is closely related to my point - the tolls are no longer a way to use the road to pay for itself; they are a form of taxation that have nothing to do with the Pike itself or highways, and everything to do with the runaway tax-and-spend state government we have, and its addiction to additional revenues by whatever means possible.
I agree that the sales tax hike should be rolled back. But the revenue should be shifted to income taxes. I'm open to spending cuts, but you've got to be specific. Which expenditures do you want to cut? Health and Human Services? OK, *where* in HHS? Veterans Services?
I wish I had the answer. What I have noticed is that government splurges on pork, and then cried poverty when it comes to police, fire, and schools. The problem is waste, which is never solved by feeding it more money.
Do you practice law? Or did you attend and then decide to do something else? I'm not being snarky; someone close to me went to law school, graduated near the top of her class, and then decided not to become a lawyer, so I know people make these decisions.
To be frank, you do possess a rather lawyer-like tendency to avoid discussing any points on which your opponent is on solid ground. However, your rhetorical approach is rather simplistic, full of fallacies like ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, and the like. I can't figure out whether that is part of your approach on purpose, because it is probably effective on many opponents and audiences, or if it is an unintentional defect.
Lawyers spend their years of law school learning not just the law, but the very specific legal meaning of the words the law is made of. They can look at a statute and read more there than you or I could. That was pretty much my whole point about lawyers.
And, if it is illegal, then perhaps they used the most restrictive they were allowed to use, not a more permissive, as you suggest.
No. The statute allows for more forms of ID than the federal statute you refer to, therefore it is more liberal rather than restrictive in terms of the ID required.
IF (set A=(1, 2, 3))
AND (set B=(set A, 4, 5, 6))
THEN set B is more inclusive than A.
Where is it? I read back through many of the comments you posted recently, and saw no link to an external site with that information.
What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about?
Losing? Hardly. Logic and facts so far are on my side. Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?
I noticed that you didn't bother answering the question though. The answer is that it's pretty ugly for a gringo who gets caught south of the border illegally; certainly worse for him than for a Mexicano north of the border. Where is all your anti-racist outrage at their laws which are demonstrably more draconian?
Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
I'll tell you what. Go to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 and read through it. You are no obligation to believe everything there, or defend it, or attack it, or anything. Just take a few minutes and think about the relative balance of justice that the US is trying to strike with its neighbors, and ask yourself if this AZ law really goes overboard.
In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
I noticed that you can't bring yourself to admit that this is the full quote. You can't admit publicly that you got caught cherry-picking half a Wikipedia quote to support your untenable position. You willfully avoided quoting the last half of the sentence which directly refuted your assertion:
whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
Say it. "Less that half." Admit it.
Are you unable to read? There is nowhere in the law where... race can't be used. ...
The law passed states "lawful contact." If you are going to say what the law states, then say what it says.
I did read it. It has been amended; you need to keep up. See here.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
In other words, as amended, the law states that race cannot be used.
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed?
Did you read the law before posting that?
Yes, but I'm not a lawyer - as I stated earlier. Are you a lawyer? If the answer is no, is it possible that your interpretation of a law is inaccurate? I was asking a very neutral question. Honestly, if you aren't a lawyer, I would guess that your interpretation of the statute is fallible - as is mine.
Are you not understanding basic English
Thanks for asking. Yes, I understand English perfectly well. You are not understanding me.
You said:
And, in any case, that [state driver's license] wouldn't be accepted by the feds as sufficient. The feds require the green card. So why doesn't AZ? Are they not allowed ot demand it? Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?
I responded to "Or do they not want... residency?" by saying
What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?
My point in doing so was to highlight that a) the AZ licenses are valid government ID, and b) they were using a more liberal interpretation of "proper identification" than you credit even the federal government with, and leaves a lower legal threshold to meet. That flies in the face of the argument that the law is draconian or severe or discriminatory.
so you are trying to pester me
No, and if you feel I am, feel free to disengage. I'm here to ask questions, perhaps learn something. If I wanted to troll, I'd have a far easier time of it that this.
Did you cherry-pick your numbers just to support your own biases?
Or clothing. Or loitering (... other unfounded assumptions... )
The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest. So FIRST the person in question has to break the law, or be suspected of doing so, in which case they have to show ID anyway. Clothing has ZERO to do with it, until AZ brings is the Fashion police to deal with law, order and colors that match.
I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.
You stated it but you did not offer a citation. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I'd also be interested to see where those numbers are drawn from. That might well be true in New York City, but I suspect that AZ is different.
Your opinion [that the law is not racist] is unfounded.
You are the one alleging racism. Prove it. Simply having an opinion isn't proof.
Something specifically crafted to target Mexicans is, de facto, racist.
It is crafted to target anyone in AZ illegally. Anyone. Ecuadorian, Columbian, Venezuelan, Yemeni, French, whatever. However, with that being said, let's not all act surprised that the border international border AZ has is with Mexico, and that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in AZ are entering from Mexico. Keep in mind, "entering from Mexico" doesn't imply that someone is Mexican. Illegals from other parts of south and central America cross into the US there too.
If AZ had bordered Canada, and millions of Canadians were migrating into and through AZ, would you argue that the law was racist against white people?
Furthermore, if the AZ law simply read that "All illegal aliens shall be treated in the same manner that US citizens would be treated in their country, if found there illegally", would you view that as racist? Because I've got to tell you, getting caught illegally in Mexico will get you far harsher treatment there than when their citizens get caught up here.
To claim otherwise is either purposefully obtuse (a lie), or indicating that you are so stupid that this is a worthless conversation.
No. To claim otherwise is to disagree with your dearly held opinion. Your statement is a failed attempt to prove your point through simple rhetorical fallacy.
From my reading of the law, presentation of a valid state-issued ID is sufficient to prove residency.
IANAL, are you? Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed? It seems that they are using the ID as proof of identity, not necessarily proof of legal residency. My impression is that a valid state-issued ID like a driver's license gives the officer something to start a background check with. I doubt it is proof itself of legal status.
Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?
What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?
Bull. Being anti-US is often a cover used by assholes to disguise their own douchebaggery with sanctimonious lectures. One can easily bring up valid criticisms of the US (or any other country for that matter) without being an asshole about it. Automatically giving "+1 Not An Asshole Because He Hates The US" points is just ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
A political discussion forum.
Not really. If he lives in Massachusetts, the DEP is gonna be all over Him, what with Title 5 septic system inspections and so forth.
Well, if we are made in His image, that would require that He have a rectum as well. N'est-ce pas?
It is things like this that make me feel there is hope for humanity, and that we're not in an unstoppable downward spiral.
Well first, you have to pour each of them over a half dozen tiny mouse beers ...
The distinction is an important one, because unlike rhubarb patches, violence can be for moral or immoral purposes.
How many uniformed parents are going to buy the laser for their kid
They'd be silly to do that, when they could just wear regular street clothes instead.
[/pedant]
Time to sue them in some east Texas court.
Maybe you've found an undocumented side effect of Toxoplasmosis.
As far as the turnpike being paid for, it is not free to operate. The "free roads" you enjoy are paid for by other Mass taxpayers to the tune of a hundred million in FY 2010, including 65 million dollars for snow and ice control. Making the Pike free means that people like me who almost never use that road are subsidizing more of your travel costs. I'm actually cool with that, but the same logic should be applied to public transit
The same could be said for other roads. I rarely or never use most of the roads here, yet I still pay for their upkeep. The original purpose of the tolls was to pay for the construction of the Pike, which has long since been satisfied. Anything since is to pay for a) the self-perpetuating Pike bureaucracy, and b) bring in revenue for the state. We all pay for stuff we rarely or never use ourselves. I'd be surprised (but I'm uninformed; feel free to prove me wrong) if public transit didn't receive some sort of public support.
As for there never being budget cuts, highway shows this to be false.
I wouldn't say there have been no highway budget cuts. In fact, that is closely related to my point - the tolls are no longer a way to use the road to pay for itself; they are a form of taxation that have nothing to do with the Pike itself or highways, and everything to do with the runaway tax-and-spend state government we have, and its addiction to additional revenues by whatever means possible.
I agree that the sales tax hike should be rolled back. But the revenue should be shifted to income taxes. I'm open to spending cuts, but you've got to be specific. Which expenditures do you want to cut? Health and Human Services? OK, *where* in HHS? Veterans Services?
I wish I had the answer. What I have noticed is that government splurges on pork, and then cried poverty when it comes to police, fire, and schools. The problem is waste, which is never solved by feeding it more money.
You've discovered an interesting correlation between research and hype. But can you prove it?
Just wait ... FIFA will come out with a test for performance enhancing parasites.
whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
Less than half. Admit you cherry picked half that sentence from Wikipedia or GTFO.
Do you practice law? Or did you attend and then decide to do something else? I'm not being snarky; someone close to me went to law school, graduated near the top of her class, and then decided not to become a lawyer, so I know people make these decisions.
To be frank, you do possess a rather lawyer-like tendency to avoid discussing any points on which your opponent is on solid ground. However, your rhetorical approach is rather simplistic, full of fallacies like ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, and the like. I can't figure out whether that is part of your approach on purpose, because it is probably effective on many opponents and audiences, or if it is an unintentional defect.
And, if it is illegal, then perhaps they used the most restrictive they were allowed to use, not a more permissive, as you suggest.
No. The statute allows for more forms of ID than the federal statute you refer to, therefore it is more liberal rather than restrictive in terms of the ID required.
IF (set A=(1, 2, 3))
AND (set B=(set A, 4, 5, 6))
THEN set B is more inclusive than A.
Then check my citation.
Where is it? I read back through many of the comments you posted recently, and saw no link to an external site with that information.
What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about?
Losing? Hardly. Logic and facts so far are on my side. Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?
I noticed that you didn't bother answering the question though. The answer is that it's pretty ugly for a gringo who gets caught south of the border illegally; certainly worse for him than for a Mexicano north of the border. Where is all your anti-racist outrage at their laws which are demonstrably more draconian?
Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
I seem to remember that you (in one of your other posts) thought that a felony on the second offense was harsh.
I'll tell you what. Go to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 and read through it. You are no obligation to believe everything there, or defend it, or attack it, or anything. Just take a few minutes and think about the relative balance of justice that the US is trying to strike with its neighbors, and ask yourself if this AZ law really goes overboard.
In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
I noticed that you can't bring yourself to admit that this is the full quote. You can't admit publicly that you got caught cherry-picking half a Wikipedia quote to support your untenable position. You willfully avoided quoting the last half of the sentence which directly refuted your assertion:
whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
Say it. "Less that half." Admit it.
Are you unable to read? There is nowhere in the law where ... race can't be used.
...
The law passed states "lawful contact." If you are going to say what the law states, then say what it says.
I did read it. It has been amended; you need to keep up. See here.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
In other words, as amended, the law states that race cannot be used.
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Just like I said.
Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed?
Did you read the law before posting that?
Yes, but I'm not a lawyer - as I stated earlier. Are you a lawyer? If the answer is no, is it possible that your interpretation of a law is inaccurate? I was asking a very neutral question. Honestly, if you aren't a lawyer, I would guess that your interpretation of the statute is fallible - as is mine.
Are you not understanding basic English
Thanks for asking. Yes, I understand English perfectly well. You are not understanding me. You said:
And, in any case, that [state driver's license] wouldn't be accepted by the feds as sufficient. The feds require the green card. So why doesn't AZ? Are they not allowed ot demand it? Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?
I responded to "Or do they not want ... residency?" by saying
What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?
My point in doing so was to highlight that a) the AZ licenses are valid government ID, and b) they were using a more liberal interpretation of "proper identification" than you credit even the federal government with, and leaves a lower legal threshold to meet. That flies in the face of the argument that the law is draconian or severe or discriminatory.
so you are trying to pester me
No, and if you feel I am, feel free to disengage. I'm here to ask questions, perhaps learn something. If I wanted to troll, I'd have a far easier time of it that this.
Show me where is says race can't be used to determine reasonable suspicion. I glanced and didn't see it.
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-2/
Are you unable or unwilling to do a simple Google search?
In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
I'd love for you to post the source article for that. I searched and found this:
In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.
Did you cherry-pick your numbers just to support your own biases?
Or clothing. Or loitering ( ... other unfounded assumptions ... )
The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest. So FIRST the person in question has to break the law, or be suspected of doing so, in which case they have to show ID anyway. Clothing has ZERO to do with it, until AZ brings is the Fashion police to deal with law, order and colors that match.
I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.
You stated it but you did not offer a citation. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I'd also be interested to see where those numbers are drawn from. That might well be true in New York City, but I suspect that AZ is different.
Your opinion [that the law is not racist] is unfounded.
You are the one alleging racism. Prove it. Simply having an opinion isn't proof.
Something specifically crafted to target Mexicans is, de facto, racist.
It is crafted to target anyone in AZ illegally. Anyone. Ecuadorian, Columbian, Venezuelan, Yemeni, French, whatever. However, with that being said, let's not all act surprised that the border international border AZ has is with Mexico, and that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in AZ are entering from Mexico. Keep in mind, "entering from Mexico" doesn't imply that someone is Mexican. Illegals from other parts of south and central America cross into the US there too.
If AZ had bordered Canada, and millions of Canadians were migrating into and through AZ, would you argue that the law was racist against white people?
Furthermore, if the AZ law simply read that "All illegal aliens shall be treated in the same manner that US citizens would be treated in their country, if found there illegally", would you view that as racist? Because I've got to tell you, getting caught illegally in Mexico will get you far harsher treatment there than when their citizens get caught up here.
To claim otherwise is either purposefully obtuse (a lie), or indicating that you are so stupid that this is a worthless conversation.
No. To claim otherwise is to disagree with your dearly held opinion. Your statement is a failed attempt to prove your point through simple rhetorical fallacy.
From my reading of the law, presentation of a valid state-issued ID is sufficient to prove residency.
IANAL, are you? Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed? It seems that they are using the ID as proof of identity, not necessarily proof of legal residency. My impression is that a valid state-issued ID like a driver's license gives the officer something to start a background check with. I doubt it is proof itself of legal status.
Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?
What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?
Bull. Being anti-US is often a cover used by assholes to disguise their own douchebaggery with sanctimonious lectures. One can easily bring up valid criticisms of the US (or any other country for that matter) without being an asshole about it. Automatically giving "+1 Not An Asshole Because He Hates The US" points is just ignorant.
If you can't learn from others' mistakes, what makes you think you will learn from your own?
Careful what you wish for. Little words like "up" make a world of difference, don't they?