BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:05 PM

Just an aside (not to derail this thread onto the issue of villas and environmental sustainability),

here's a little more on Al Gore's new $8 million villa:
Gores Buy Montecito Villa

and maybe the rest of the story?
Ecorazzi.com on how the Gores equipped their Tennessee home

Most of the cost of this estate is no doubt the property itself (high-cost real estate with ocean view), not the house itself or the pools, etc.   As to how big a carbon footprint such an estate leaves, that depends a lot on how much of the home (and pools, etc.) is being used at any one time, what kinds of energy sources and conservation devices they use, what kinds of landscaping methods they use, etc.   And it sounds like they bought an existing house, so the 9 bathrooms may not have been their idea. However, if you are entertaining guests in a large house, having bathrooms on all floors and adjacent to the various rooms (5 bedrooms, a dining room, a rec room or exercise room) and next to the pool doesn't seem unreasonable. Bathrooms aren't using energy or water when they're not in use.   
The issue of environmental stewardship has more to do with how you use and maintain your property than with how much you own.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:06 PM

Oh, and I just noticed: I got #200!   (Neener neener)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 02:25 AM

Ebbers: "What happens when your neighbor, disgruntled or not, calls the police and says that s/he believes that her/his neighbor is selling drugs and that s/he believes that lots of the Mexican-appearing visitors are illegals? What are police required to do, given that scenario? "

If you went through the 60's, it could have been long hair. Where have you been, all these years?..People do it all the time...their called CI's, narcs, finks, informers..rats. What;s new?..and what does that have to do with the price of eggs???

Remember, "Maintain"?....especially if you were doing something ILLEGAL..or appeared to be doing something ILLEGAL???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 10 - 07:56 PM

GFS: I assume if the neighbor made a formal complaint, either the Sheriff's office or the police would investigate. Many, many, neighborhoods in towns in Arizona contain houses that Coyotes rent and dump their loads of illegals in them. Then they are transported to other states or are assimilated in the local population.

It is not uncommon for either law enforcement agency or ICE, raids such a house and arrests 25 or 30 illegals at one time. Sometimes the Coyotes hold the illegals for ransom which relatives in the country from whence they came are expected to pay. This is after the Coyote has already collected a sizable fee to him to be transported to Arizona.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 10 - 03:01 AM

I betcha' some of them even turn in their 'cargo', if they could collect a reward, as well!.
Just the same, 'Maintain'..and being as I doubt Ebbers is involved with that mess, I doubt if anyone will be turning her in....unless to win an award for her wonderful whole wheat bread!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 May 10 - 08:44 PM

"either the Sheriff's office....would investigate."

Precisely.

And this is exactly why this law is considered a disaster by quite a few law enforcement professionals--despite any rabid supporters among the good citizens of Arizona.

The sheriff's office has enough to do already, thank you.

The sheriff of Pina County, which has a 123-mile border with Mexico, had a very interesting column in the Wall St Journal 5 May 2010 (yesterday).   "My deputies have referred more illegals to the Border Patrol and ICE than any other state or local law enforcement agency in Arizona."

And what does he think of this wonderful new "tool" for the police?

It's a total loser.

It puts his men in a no-win situation.

Reason:   either they anger a citizen or legal immigrant by asking to see papers or stand accused of non-feasance when they don't (ask).



It's also interesting that there were Hispanic groups favoring Republicans as recently as 2008. But now at least one which calls itself "Somos Republicans" is outraged at this obvious profiling of Hispanics.    How many votes for supporters of this law will come from this group in the fall?   Take a guess.

After all, anybody who doesn't think that Hispanic appearance will be a long step towards establishing "reasonable suspicion" should start thinking.

Especially since, as I pointed out earlier, if the policeman declines to act, he can now be sued by the stalwart citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 May 10 - 09:54 PM

'The sheriff of Pina County, which has a 123-mile border with Mexico... "My deputies have referred more illegals to the Border Patrol and ICE than any other state or local law enforcement agency in Arizona."'

             Of course he has. That's were most of them are coming over, and that's why the people of Arizona wanted the law.

             I wonder how many he misses. I wonder why the New York Times publishes an op-ed letter from a sheriff in Arizona. Can anybody spell Schumer?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:20 PM

I read recently that the number of illegals has dropped off considerably over the last 3 years??? Why the law now if illegal immigration is in decline??? Why not 3 years ago???

(There wasn't a black Democrat in the White House, Boberdz...)

Oh??? I get it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 10:28 PM

Desperate attempt to curry favor with the MOR racist whites when the Republicans are out of power? Just guessin'.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:20 PM

"how many he misses..."

Not as many by a long shot as the poster--who still hasn't learned to read. Pobrecito.i

Situation normal.

The paper was the well-known leftist rag, the Wall St. Journal.   As somebody who could read more than just what he wanted to see would have noticed.

Point is:   the sheriff has enough to do without zealous citizens second-guessing him and telling him what to do every step of the way.

That is perhaps the main problem with this wonderful law:   it takes away the discretion of the police officer to judge whether a person should be apprehended or not--since if he does not comply with the would-be Dick Tracy citizen, he could be sued.

As Genie has pointed out, it's a bonanza for trial lawyers, a classic mess for everybody else.

Not that the poster, blinded by the "Brown Peril" should be expected to see this.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:21 PM

"Pobrecito"   (no i, in case you wondered)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 May 10 - 11:26 PM

But no, Bobert, as you know, the main reason for the decline in illegal immigrants recently is the economic decline in the US. After all, they don't come here just since they have an urge to travel.

As Art, I think it was, said: if there were good jobs in Sonora or wherever, they'd stay home.





Unless of course you were just jerking the chain of the illustrious Mr. Rig.   And I know you wouldn't do anything like that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 10 - 03:51 PM

Ron Davies: Wall Street Journal a well known "leftist" paper? That's a hoot!

I read the article in the WSJ. Suppose the same paper printed an op-ed peace written by Sheriff Joe Arpio, who supports the Bill. Would you believe what he wrote?

The latest Fox News Poll out today shows that 61% of Americans polled support the Bill. Note I wrote Americans, not just Arizonans.

Doesn't it get a bit tiresome being in the minority so much of the time?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:00 PM

Ron Davies: Wall Street Journal a well known "leftist" paper? That's a hoot!

I rather think that was meant as sarcasm.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:18 PM

"The latest Fox News Poll out today shows...

I'd really curious how **Fox News** worded their questions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: GUEST,Calico
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:33 PM

I remember other polls showing that a majority of Americans would vote to overturn most of the bill of rights if they could.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:39 PM

That would be comforting to the Republicans under GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 07:42 PM

It's hard to find a poll that doesn't 'load' its questions to guarantee the answer they want to wave about.

Even some of my favorite lefty TV programs do that... *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 May 10 - 09:01 PM

..."in the minority all the time".   So the poster believes perhaps that the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate and House.

Anything you say, Mr. Van Winkle.   You may possibly want to wake up soon.   You seem to have missed the 2008 election.

And Sheriff "Arpio" (sic).   The poster's proofreading skills mirror his grasp of logic.   It might be an idea to actually read what he writes before he posts it. Might possibly save some him from some embarrassingly stupid errors.

Mr Arpaio was recently under investigation--may still be.   The mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, on 4 April 2008, requested the US Attorney General to investigate "his pattern of ....discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests".    Ah yes, Mr. Arpaio is a true role model for law enforcement officers.

His response to "discriminatory harassment...."?:   "Arrest them all". This philosophy is not exactly constitutional--unless of course the poster prefers the constitution of the Third Reich.   Perhaps he does. That would explain a good bit.

So sorry the poster doesn't recognize the WSJ as a "leftist rag".   Can't understand what the problem might be.

Point is: a sheriff with 123 miles of border with Mexico, and who already is in the forefront of stopping illegal immigration, might just possibly know more about the problem than the poster does--especially what it would be like to have rabid anti-immigration fools...uh, I mean sterling citizens... threatening his men with lawsuits every time they did not apprehend somebody the citizen fingered as an illegal immigrant.

Not of course that the poster would be one of the above-cited fools.   In the time-honored phrase of Mr. Cheney, I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 May 10 - 09:04 PM

..."in the minority so much of the time?"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 11:08 PM

People turning other people in to the police. What famous 20th century country does that remind me of? Let me think. Let me think.

I've got it! The Soviet Union!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Your papers, please' - for US citizens?
From: Genie
Date: 08 May 10 - 01:42 AM

Bill D, yes, many polls do sort of "pull" for one kind of answer or another by the way they are wording, but not all polls are equally slanted in that way.
It is possible to word a poll objectively or neutrally, or at least come close. And in general I think those done by nonpartisan, nonideological research organizations come closest.

What's important, though, is to look carefully at the questions asked and the respondent sampling methods used when trying to interpret what the results mean.

In the case of the Arizona law, I'd want to make sure those being polled clearly understood what the law allows and demands before asserting that most Americans "support the law."