How long before some faction in Iowa City says dont play Arizona

Status
Not open for further replies.
Officer pulls you over. First thing they ask is, "May I see your driver's license and registration?"

Ooooh, wow. Guess I'm getting racially profiled every time I get caught speeding.

You're right--citizens of Latino descent will be questioned "quite frequently"... if they break the law.

Just like everybody else.
 
You're right--it's absurd to carry ID. :)

I do some really crazy things every day, like drive my car. And if I want to drive my car, I take my ID and proof of citizenship with me. It's called my driver's license.

Apparently nobody in Arizona drives with their driver's license.

Because that's what we're talking about, folks. A driver's license.
Plenty of people are riding bikes, jogging, walking, etc. with no form of identification because it's not necessary when doing any of those things. Police can, and will, come up with reasons to talk to one of those folks. Those situations may be in the minority, but it will happen. It's not just traffic stops.
 
Plenty of people are riding bikes, jogging, walking, etc. with no form of identification because it's not necessary when doing any of those things. Police can, and will, come up with reasons to talk to one of those folks. Those situations may be in the minority, but it will happen. It's not just traffic stops.

And they're just dumb. Who goes anywhere without ID? Seriously, if you're riding a bike and you're not carrying ID, and you get hit by a truck? Dumb.

Anyway, it's easy enough for the cops to do a quick search in a database to find if you're a citizen.
 
Officer pulls you over. First thing they ask is, "May I see your driver's license and registration?"

Ooooh, wow. Guess I'm getting racially profiled every time I get caught speeding.

You're right--citizens of Latino descent will be questioned "quite frequently"... if they break the law.

Just like everybody else.

And you've never forgotten your wallet, or couldn't find it but needed to get moving?

And breaking the law is pretty vague. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. I do it all the time but never get questioned. Guaranteed that Latinos who jaywalk will need to fork over ID's though.
 
And they're just dumb. Who goes anywhere without ID? Seriously, if you're riding a bike and you're not carrying ID, and you get hit by a truck? Dumb.

Anyway, it's easy enough for the cops to do a quick search in a database to find if you're a citizen.
The rare few times I have gone running, I've never taken my ID. I often go to the park with my kids without my ID. I've ridden my bike many times without my ID. I'm a statistically minded person who plays the odds, I guess.
 
Nobody is going to be deported because they forgot their wallet at home.

Something tells me you didn't read the article I linked. The guy was held in a detention center for 13 months, even though he provided both his and his father's birth certificates, and his parents' marriage certificate. It didn't make any difference. He was still held for 13 months, even though he was a U.S. citizen.
 
You guys don't get it do you? He got his MA in '99. This guy knows everything! A MASTERS!!! I can't believe some of you think you have the right to question him, shame on you
 
Hey, I enjoy the conversation. Yeah, I didn't read the article.

And I don't know everything, but I do know that 13 months in a detention center for nothing is wrongful imprisonment.
 
Hey, I enjoy the conversation. Yeah, I didn't read the article.

And I don't know everything, but I do know that 13 months in a detention center for nothing is wrongful imprisonment.

I agree, and I don't doubt that it will continue to happen. He was picked up after serving a 6-month sentence for receiving stolen property. Then he got picked up and was held under civil immigration laws, where he was neither accused or convicted of a crime. And he wasn't entitled to legal counsel, so he was forced into detention without the right to judicial review.

Things like that are bound to happen, I'm afraid.
 
all liberals are crazy, stupid, emotionally guilty about something or think they are smarter than everyone in the HISTORY of the human race.
 
What is so absurd about being concerned about a law that would require every single spanish speaking latino in Arizona to carry ID with them at all times or risk being arrested and shipped to federal law enforcement in order to prove their status?

What's absurd is that you continue inaccurately describing a bill you admit you haven't read. This is crucial because the bill has been grossly mis-characterized in the media, where I assume you've gleaned your information. Our own president has made multiple, objectively false statements about the bill, which is genuinely distressing to me - he ought to be setting a factual tone to the debate.

For those interested in facts, see Op-Ed Contributor - Why Arizona Had to Draw a Line on Illegal Immigrants - NYTimes.com

Regarding the "show me your papers" hyperbole. My wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen. As a green-card holder for years, she was required by federal law to have her immigration documents on her person at all times while in public, available for inspection by any law enforcement person. This has been the law for years and is very well understood by immigrants, I assure you. The new Arizona law changes nothing in this regard - and actually adds a loophole in immigrants' favor: AZ law requires cops to regard a drivers license as presumptive proof of citizenship, which is not federal law and not the case in many states.
 
Last edited:
Technically "Suns" is a proper name so it wouldn't change during translation.

Point well taken. Still, I'd like to see "Los Sols", just for the absurdity of it all.
And the announcer during the introductions would say, ". . . and starting at point guard for Los Sols, Esteban Nash!!" Then, big massive pinatas could come down from the ceiling while mariachis played "LaCucaracha". Now, that would be a statement.
 
If this was the first time you thinly veiled a political discussion with something about the Hawkeyes I might believe you. This stuff belongs in the politics forum, you should abide by your own rules.
Good advice, Mr Miller. You would do well to take it seriously. Your reference to "some faction in Iowa City" clearly shows your political and partisan intention.

Truth is, if you made any effort to describe the actual situation objectively you would know easily that the subject of the Arizona law has already been raised not by some vaguely "left" U of Iowa students, faculty, residents of the People's Republic of Johnson County. It has been made a major theme and top political campaign issue by the man most likely to be the Republican candidate for Governor or Iowa--who not only promises to change Iowa law to copy the new statute in Arizona but demands that the United States & the State of Iowa's Constitutions be amended to remove the protection of the Bill or Rights in both constitutions and the 14th Amendment of children BORN in the United States whenever a majority can be persuaded to take away the rights of a group they don't like--Hispanics, Muslims, African-Americans, Jews, Mormons, Asians, Catholics, Pentecostals, "secular humanists", people who eat in the wrong ethnic restaurants, you name it. And he doesn't stop there: he also demands that the Constitution be amended to change the words "any person" to citisen so that non-citizens will no longer have the benefits of due process and other basic American rights.

The "English language only" provisions added to Iowa law, Mr Milller. If you weren't paying attention when that anti-Hispanic sentiment was being stirred up in our state, let me assure you that the divisive fight was not started by some U of Iowa faction that values multi-culturalism.

And as for the hypocritical prattle about bringing politics into sports, the obvious absurdity of such nonsensical posturing is that the University of Iowa is a public institution, chartered and financed by the State of Iowa.

The more basic, fundamental fact most relevant here is that there are few programs at the U of Iowa that are as multi-cultural as the Iowa Hawkeye football team. The one person who may have the principal role IF the Arizona game becomes controversial will be Kirk Ferentz--and if you think Ferentz, a man defined by his loyalty to his staff and players, will agree to proceed with the game IF his players from minority backgrounds object, you simply don't know the man.

As of now, it is only a potential problem for the Iowa Hawkeyes. The irony is that the U of Arizona community, staff and students are strongly opposed to the new law; there is the real possibility that the opposition in Arizona may set about to organize nation-wide boycotts, even the prospect that national Hispanic organizations will do so.

If that occurs, you shouldn't have any doubts about how Ferentz, the Iowa athletic dept, the student body and the U of Iowa administration will respond. If the NAACP or the Jewish Anti-Defamation League or the Council of American Catholic Bishops called upon universities to not participate in venues that discriminated against African-Americans or Jews or Catholics do you think for a moment that the U of Iowa would dismiss it as a "political matter that shouldn't involve sports"? Do you imagine the response would be any different to such a request from national organizations representing Hispanics in the United States?

My guess is that it will not get to the point Iowa has to make a choice.
The reaction to Arizona's effort to legislate bigotry by state statute is a clear violation of the specific language embodying the principles of federalism in the US Constitution: the power to enact & enforce immigration law is explicitly given to the federal government. Enforcement of the new Arizona statute will be suspended quickly, then eventually thrown out in the courts. In the meantime, the impact on Arizona's economy is likely to be so devastating that even the idiots in the legislature will realize that aiming at Mexican nationals they shot themselves.
 
The bill has been grossly mis-characterized in the media, where I assume you've gleaned your information. Our own president has made multiple, objectively false statements about the bill, which is genuinely distressing to me - he ought to be setting a factual tone to the debate.

For those interested in facts, see Op-Ed Contributor - Why Arizona Had to Draw a Line on Illegal Immigrants - NYTimes.com
Simply cannot imagine why anyone would direct "those interested in the facts" to an ideological rant by one of the most notorious anti-immigrant extremists in the country.

For those readers unfamiliar with Kris Kobach he is a right-wing nativist from Topeka, Kansas, who works for and represents the white-supremacist Federation for American Immigration. Early in the Bush Administration he was a minor official under John Ashcroft who was pushed out because of his extremist views about using military force on our borders. He ran as the extreme right-candidate for a Kansas congressional seat in 2004, won the nomination over two more moderate candidates, then lost badly to a Democrat supported by mainstream Republicans. He led a coup taking brief control as Chairman of the Kansas GOP, then set off a civil war in the party trying to remove moderate Republicans from party & public office.

If anyone believes that the major media and press in the United States are allied with the President of the United States in some sort of liberal conspiracy to hang pinatas on flagpoles across America instead of the red, white & blue, then he/she would do better to get a background on the Arizona law from a more rational, less nativist conservative journalist or legal writer. A qood example, easily accessible, is the April 22, 2010 column in the most traditional Republican newspaper in the nation, the Chicago Tribune, by conservative libertarian columnist Steven Chapman.
 
Racial profiling...Who is illegal? Kind of like who is attacking the US and blowing up planes--young middle east men and women or the elderly woman from Sioux City? Who would you rather focus on at airports?

As for illegals in the southwest, who do you focus on --the white or black people or the hispanics? Call it racial profiling or whatever semantics you want but it is hispanic folks that are coming across the border is it not?

Like in airports, they can focus on the elderly lady from Sioux City but the chances of her having a bomb is slim to none. However, the chances of the young male, 20 to 35, from the Middle East of having a bomb goes up greatly does it not?

Same in Arizona, law enforcement can stop white and black folks and check their legal status and the chances of them being in the US illegally is slim to none. However, checking hispanics working in kitchens and elsewhere at menial jobs and at job sites and in select parts of the city and the odds go up greatly, does it not?

In Albuquerque, if law enforcement went to the Southwest part of the City, they would end up arresting most of that part of the city and the population of the City would probably be reduced by 1/4. Most of that part of the City is in Spanish (streets, signs, and so on). Mostly illegals...law enforcement could randomly stop anyone there and they would be illegal 9 out of 10 times and probably could barely speak English. The same holds true in Phoenix I would bet and in numerous areas of Arizona. That is all law enforcement needs to focus on. It isn't like they need to start stopping people on the street.

Plus, remember when we go to other countries we are TOLD to keep our passports on us at all times and that INCLUDES Mexico or we can be put in jail or deported. And we can be stopped at ANY time and asked to see our identification. Isn't THAT ironic

You stop talkin about my Momma! I'm from Sioux City!
 
Simply cannot imagine why anyone would direct "those interested in the facts" to an ideological rant by one of the most notorious anti-immigrant extremists in the country.

For those readers unfamiliar with Kris Kobach he is a right-wing nativist from Topeka, Kansas, who works for and represents the white-supremacist Federation for American Immigration. Early in the Bush Administration he was a minor official under John Ashcroft who was pushed out because of his extremist views about using military force on our borders. He ran as the extreme right-candidate for a Kansas congressional seat in 2004, won the nomination over two more moderate candidates, then lost badly to a Democrat supported by mainstream Republicans. He led a coup taking brief control as Chairman of the Kansas GOP, then set off a civil war in the party trying to remove moderate Republicans from party & public office.

If anyone believes that the major media and press in the United States are allied with the President of the United States in some sort of liberal conspiracy to hang pinatas on flagpoles across America instead of the red, white & blue, then he/she would do better to get a background on the Arizona law from a more rational, less nativist conservative journalist or legal writer. A qood example, easily accessible, is the April 22, 2010 column in the most traditional Republican newspaper in the nation, the Chicago Tribune, by conservative libertarian columnist Steven Chapman.

Kobach co-authored the bill. You didn't challenge a single fact in your rant - strictly an ad hominum attack, the last refuge of those with poor arguments.
 
Someone spoke of a straw man argument, but this entire thread is a straw man argument. Is there any factual basis for all this anger directed against flannel-shirt-wearing Iowans who may or may not be inclined to demand that Iowa cancel its game in Arizona? Has anyone done a press release? Leafletting in front of the Old Capitol? It is actually possible to find out if REAL people are REALLY doing what everyone is getting so mad about.

I live in LA and don't know what's happening on the street in IC. But I've read a fair amount about the ACTUAL sporting-event protests going on around the country in response to SB 1070. There have been no reports over here of anyone demanding that U$C cancel its game at UA on Nov 13, or that UCLA cancel its game at ASU on Nov 27. But don't be surprised to hear about big protests in LA when the D-backs show up in Chavez Ravine on May 31.

The Arizona Diamondbacks have been followed by protests in every road series they've had since the law passed. NONE of these protests have called for games to be cancelled. People are calling on MLB to move the 2011 All-Star game, which is currently scheduled to be played in Phoenix. There is precedent, as the NFL once moved a Super Bowl from Phoenix to the Rose Bowl when Arizona was refusing to recognize the Martin Luther King holiday. (And, of course, there was nothing racist about that national outrage, either.)

Many groups are encouraging individuals who are outraged by SB 1070 to choose not to travel to Arizona as long as the law remains on the books. I had been planning to make the eight-hour drive from LA to see the Iowa-Arizona game, hopefully meeting up with some family and friends in Colorado. But I have changed my plans. As has been mentioned above, I am not the only one. I won't think that you're a racist if you choose to go to the game. I would think that you really, really want to go see the Hawkeyes that day.

For those feeling sorry for me :)-p) I have peeps in Omaha, and I think me and the Colorado peeps will just meet up there, and go to one of the home games. Lotsa details to plan, but now I get to watch my Hawkeyes AND spend my money in the state that legalized gay marriage! Double SCORE! (As a UI alum, that is no joke. It fills me with pride that the Hawkeye State has distinguished itself in the fight against discrimination.)
 
Kobach co-authored the bill. You didn't challenge a single fact in your rant - strictly an ad hominum attack, the last refuge of those with poor arguments.
Billso -

The problem is that with many issues, there isn't a clear-cut right answer. Often times the "right answer" depends on the morality of the individual. The implication here is that any argument that could be made would only convince those who already share a similar moral code. The only other viable alternative then sometimes is to question the "source" ... that is, if the issue has a "source" that can be tracked down.

Thus, since Kobach co-authored the bill, then that only strengthens tiggerhawk's argument. Do you think physics-monographs written by crack-pots in the field are taken seriously? Should they be? Similarly, Kobach really IS a rather reactionary fellow. I think that it is kind of wise for people to scratch their heads a bit and ask the question ... "... am I really agreeing with this nut-job?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top