Lawsuit filed against tough new Alabama immigration law

Followed by 100% shaming language and thought police.

 

Not to mention the infant who's buttock and corresponding diaper was searched by qualified TSA pediatricians. Glad I drove instead of going through all that security nonsense. Yet a Nigerian man with no passport and incorrect boarding pass goes through. I just hope that officers in states like Arizona will respect my sovereignty as an American citizen and recognize my freedom to take a leak at an open rest area, to my satisfaction.

 

Your missing something from your bold statement. Public urination, just like coming across the boarder without going through the peoper channels, is ILLEGAL.

Sec. 22-13. Urination, defecation in public place.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate in, or upon any public or private property except in toilet facilities provided therefor.

(b) Any violation of this section shall be punishable as a petty offense, subject to a maximum penalty of three hundred dollars ($300) per violation.
(Ord. No. 92.39, 7-30-92)

Your freedom loving American urine will only cost you $300.

 

Hmm, you bring up good points Steve. I think we as a country must delve into these matters very carefully. I am Hispanic and I do believe that there is a problem. However, requiring police to profile anyone who may appear illegal (I guess that means dark skinned) would basically turn the popo into boots on the ground ICE agents? How does that make sense.

On the note, I would like to post this video.

YouTube - ‪"First They Came For ... " Poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller. - THEN and NOW - . I did NOT speak up.‬‏

Abner

 

Where did I say urinate in property other than toilet facilities? My statement was without clarification, for that I apologize. I don't want anyone urinating in front of my family or anyone for that matter. Yes, going without proper channels ( documentation ) to and from Mexico ( or any other country ) is illegal.

 

Hahaha too funny. I just assumed you meant you were peeing in public. Which as guys we are allowed to do...as long as nobody is watching. As my Dad used to say when we were out hiking and I needed to go "The world is your urinal".

 

None of the laws require the police to profile anyone. The law states that it "allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. It also requires businesses to check the legal status of new workers and requires schools to report the immigration status of students"

What is unreasonable about requiring people to be in this country legally? As in, you want to live here then you go through the process, it may be a long process but its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Like whenever someone complains about how they are treated on this forum. Don't like the rules of the forums? Don't come is what they are told.

Why are we all assuming that this is targeting our friends south of the boarder? If there's no immigration problem why do people assume this will harm brown people?

 

Your Dad is correct. :approve:

 

I think it is implied. If I understand what the opposing side is saying, their contention is that due to his language it basically creates the ability for police to discriminate. Almost as if it makes the evaluation too subjective. Specifically the "anyone suspected of" phrase. That begs the question of "What creates the suspicion?"

 

Even those of us who are not Middle Eastern but still not "WASP" (forgive the term! I'm not sure how else to explain the concept of stereotypical white/Anglo) in appearance or name still get "randomly selected" for thorough baggage searches, X-ray examinations, and pat-downs. I'd suspect that this would apply to most everyone: Africans, East Europeans, Asians, etc.

 

Damn! The price has gone up significantly. When I was in college, the price was only $38!

 

I like how Ted says the price was $38. Not the fine. Price means that Ted here must have been a hell raiser in his days.

Cops come upon Ted doing his business out in the wild:

Cops = "Freeze sucka!"
Ted = "Just doing my business boys...what's the price?"
Cops = "Um, well that'll be $38 please"
Ted = "Ahhhh I feel better now, here you are fellas (hands over 38 bones)"

 

They should be exposed to more scrutiny than non-muslim, non-Arab travelers. Not because they are bad people, I understand the majority of them are upstanding citizens, but because they fit the profile of those deemed to be a threat. Same goes for individuals from Latin countries living here. It's not that they are bad people, it's that they fit a profile.

look, if the problem was irish/dutch lapsed catholics I'd gladly let them do their secondary screening of me at airports. Hell, I've been selected for it before and not complained as the clearly Arab/Muslim travelers were sent on there merry way. I find it laughable, but I didn't complain. If there was an rash of really good looking 6'2" 200lbs guys with green eyes committing armed robberies (or any other crime) I'd gladly answer a police officer's questions when stopped. Being PC has been taken to far.

 

First of all, good job on almost being done at Thomas M. Cooley.

033...... bring up points like this:

"None of the laws require the police to profile anyone. The law states that it "allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. It also requires businesses to check the legal status of new workers and requires schools to report the immigration status of students"

Ironically, President Clinton had one of the most stringent policies in this regard. During his presidency, he instituted something that was called IEVS (I think), in which an employer could instantly check the legal status of a worker. This WAS required. Here is the funny part, when GW took office, His adminstration disbanded that online verification check program. I wonder why? Now, under the Obama administration, a new versions of IEVS is coming to light under ICE. How do I know this? I work for the government, and yes AUTiger, I am also a taxpayer. :smile:

I am all for making US companies hire "legal" workers, instead of "illegal" worker who they can use and abuse. The language in the new bill is nebulous at best.

Having said that, I am a white Hispanic. This is not about brown vs white.

Abner

 

I am a WASP (meaning typical "white guy") and have been selected for additional searches at the airport a few times. Maybe I just look shifty...maybe it was the talking to myself with mumbling of "...damn dissertation process...damn NCU...damn chair..."

 

Hey, I find the term WASP highly offensive!!! While I am not a White Anglo Saxon Protestant, many of my friends are and I aspire to be one someday (after converting, I'm leaning Methodist at the moment). Please refrain from using the term, as my overly-sensitive PC psyche can't take it. Keep it up and I'll report you to the AWASPU and/or NAAWASP.

 

I can imagine the long crazed stare of someone in the middle of their diss. would make anyone leary. They SHOULD have search you twice. Foaming at the mouth and mumbling are not generally conducive to travel

 

So you are offended for them! Now that is a sensitive man! Is calling a man "sensitive" PC? If it is not I apologize in advance as I would never-ever want to offend anyone even if it means not having a single personal belief in anything at anytime.

 

Do you have some nefarious theory why GW quit using the system? Nevermind, he quit using the system to pad the pockets of his rich businessman friends. I think the new system is called E-Verify? It's referenced in the Alabama Immigration Law. The state law derives its power from the Federal Law about using a verification system for workers.


Also, both you and I work for the government and we don't pay taxes. We consume taxes. All the money they give us comes from taxpayers. We may shift some of it around and even give some of it back to the government, but since that's where it all came from to start with, we just consume our living from it.


Short history of E-verify (and I-9 form):
1986: Ronald Reagan's The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) required employers to verify that all newly-hired employees present "facially valid" documentation verifying the employee's identity and his or her legal authorization to accept employment in the United States. The I-9 form or more properly the Employment Eligibility Verification Form is provided by the federal government for that purpose. Every employee hired after November 6, 1986 must complete an I-9 form at the time of hire.

1996: Bill Clinton signs Executive Order 12989 That is titled, "Economy and Efficiency in Government Procurement Through Compliance With Certain Immigration and Naturalization Act Provisions"

1997: Pilot program for E-verify is created and used on a volunteer basis.

2008: George W. Bush Executive Order 13465 which amends EO 12989 - "Economy and Efficiency in Government Procurement Through Compliance with Certain Immigration and Nationality Act Provisions and Use of an Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System". This is in conjunction with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

2009: After four postponements, the mandate will be in affect on 09-08-2009 after Congress voted on it.