South Carolina House passes illegal immigration bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
That's pretty sad if you ask me. You had to show an audiogram to prove to them that you were deaf enough to play? Sheesh. And just because you can talk?
Click to expand...

Yup.... but I didn't mind.. Proving you are legal to play is no issue when you are legal
 
TXgolfer said:
Yup.... but I didn't mind.. Proving you are legal to play is no issue when you are legal
Click to expand...

Suppose you were a shade 1 dB lower than the required threshold to pass muster? Go out and crank up the stereo volume and listen to Def Leppard all day hoping to lose a few more hair cells?
 
TXgolfer said:
Yup.... but I didn't mind.. Proving you are legal to play is no issue when you are legal
Click to expand...

Yeah, same thing for a certain deaf golf tournament. Only thing is that you'd be disqualified if you wore your hearing aid or cochlear implant while playing. Heck, it'd be a disadvantage to wear one than not since you don't have to worry about people talking and upsetting your concentration right before you take a swing at a golf ball.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yup.... but I didn't mind.. Proving you are legal to play is no issue when you are legal
Click to expand...

Ah but see, we don't have a problem showing that we are legal. We have a problem with CERTAIN groups ONLY having to show that they are legal and in the most inefficient way. You showed proof of being deaf JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE who applied there.

Example: There have been quite a few Chinese spies working in aerospace and defense companies in US. They would leak the information back to homeland. (Yes yes the Chinese are the new Russians. ;) ) Now, some people would want to have their computers periodically monitored or even not hire them at all in the first place. Instead, the companies tightened up security OVERALL. Monitor EVERYONE'S computer, background checks, strict rules for classified/sensitive information, and so on. EVERYONE is subjected to this higher security. Oh wait they just found an Indian spy, oh, they didn't expect that one, did they?

You may not see it, but a good part of the America will not subjected to this law. Someone asked about illegal Canadians, do you honestly think illegal Canadians would EVER be "caught" using this law?

There are MUCH better ways to do this. Frankly, I find this a waste of time and money only to find out that, in 5 years, SC is going to realize that there are more efficient ways. I call this law... a trail and error law. If they really want to do it, go ahead, so that, at least, they would learn from it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Ah but see, we don't have a problem showing that we are legal. We have a problem with CERTAIN groups ONLY having to show that they are legal and in the most inefficient way. You showed proof of being deaf JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE who applied there.

Example: There have been quite a few Chinese spies working in aerospace and defense companies in US. They would leak the information back to homeland. (Yes yes the Chinese are the new Russians. ;) ) Now, some people would want to have their computers periodically monitored or even not hire them at all in the first place. Instead, the companies tightened up security OVERALL. Monitor EVERYONE'S computer, background checks, strict rules for classified/sensitive information, and so on. EVERYONE is subjected to this higher security. Oh wait they just found an Indian spy, oh, they didn't expect that one, did they?

You may not see it, but a good part of the America will not subjected to this law. Someone asked about illegal Canadians, do you honestly think illegal Canadians would EVER be "caught" using this law?

There are MUCH better ways to do this. Frankly, I find this a waste of time and money only to find out that, in 5 years, SC is going to realize that there are more efficient ways. I call this law... a trail and error law. If they really want to do it, go ahead, so that, at least, they would learn from it.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing

In South Carolina they are going to ask for a license when the pull you over.....they do that already and as Reba pointed out a license in SC is proof of citizenship

Once they get the license they are going to run it through a computer....they do that already

If there is no license they will try to verify the ID of the person....they do that already

Everything they plan to do on stops....they do already. They are going to add one quick step. So that is not really expensive.

Now as for the task force..... :dunno: I would guess that would go after employers like the Texas task force does. That's something that almost everyone here wanted.
 
TXgolfer said:
Well, here's the thing

In South Carolina they are going to ask for a license when the pull you over.....they do that already and as Reba pointed out a license in SC is proof of citizenship

Once they get the license they are going to run it through a computer....they do that already

If there is no license they will try to verify the ID of the person....they do that already

Everything they plan to do on stops....they do already. They are going to add one quick step. So that is not really expensive.

Now as for the task force..... :dunno: I would guess that would go after employers like the Texas task force does. That's something that almost everyone here wanted.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing. When I say efficient, I am not just talking about money. I am talking about TIME (which = money, anyway). For at least several years, people in SC are going to wait around and "hope" this works. Meaning they probably won't do ANYTHING ELSE to combat illegal immigration, because they are relying on "this little step" to solve their problem. See my point?

You already pointed out that SC does most things already, so it's just a little extra step.... which, in my opinion, will decrease morale more than increase the number of illegal immigrants caught.

I tend to look at things in the big picture.
 
TXgolfer said:
Well, here's the thing

In South Carolina they are going to ask for a license when the pull you over.....they do that already and as Reba pointed out a license in SC is proof of citizenship

Once they get the license they are going to run it through a computer....they do that already

If there is no license they will try to verify the ID of the person....they do that already

Everything they plan to do on stops....they do already. They are going to add one quick step. So that is not really expensive.

Now as for the task force..... :dunno: I would guess that would go after employers like the Texas task force does. That's something that almost everyone here wanted.
Click to expand...

After all those steps are taken, why and how would the cop have "reasonable suspicion" a person is an illegal alien? That is part of the new amendment proposed.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Here is the thing. When I say efficient, I am not just talking about money. I am talking about TIME (which = money, anyway). For at least several years, people in SC are going to wait around and "hope" this works. Meaning they probably won't do ANYTHING ELSE to combat illegal immigration, because they are relying on "this little step" to solve their problem. See my point?

You already pointed out that SC does most things already, so it's just a little extra step.... which, in my opinion, will decrease morale more than increase the number of illegal immigrants caught.

I tend to look at things in the big picture.
Click to expand...


:dunno: I don't see that checking legal status would take a great deal of time. And if SC is as serious about the II problem as others I am sure they won't put all their eggs in one basket.


@beo..... I would think not being to verify your identity would be a pretty good sign.
 
TXgolfer said:
:dunno: I don't see that checking legal status would take a great deal of time. And if SC is as serious about the II problem as others I am sure they won't put all their eggs in one basket.


@beo..... I would think not being to verify your identity would be a pretty good sign.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. They ALREADY HAVE procedures for that situation. Why is the amendment needed?
 
Beach girl said:
Of course they did - speak to him to request documentation, that is. Beowulf was making the assertion that "white boys" wouldn't be asked to show citizenship papers. My point is that any white person here who's ever been stopped by a cop would know that's ridiculous. You get stopped, you show your driver's license (and in hubby's case, he showed his green card too), and if you're legit, all is well. Or as well as it could be, depending on what you did.

How many obviously Caucasion persons are asked on a daily basis to provide their green cards when stopped by a police officer? Beowulf wasn't referring to white people being stopped for a traffic violation and asked for license, registration, and proof of insurance. :roll: Are you purposely being obtuse or should I be feeling sorry for you, as well?
His white color and dulcet British tones didn't save him from anything; being legal and having the papers to prove it made sure it wasn't any worse than it had to be. If he'd been without valid driver's license and green card, he would have been SOL, white or not.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about his accent.

Someone with a British accent has quite obviously come into this country from Great Britian. Is it really that difficult to understand?


This is true, and most likely the grounds upon which this law is likely to be struck down. The fact that the Feds aren't doing a great job of it is irrelevant; it IS a Federal obligation.
Click to expand...

The fact that it is a Federal obligation is not the reason this law will be struck down. The fact that the law is discriminatory and racist is the reason it will be struck down.
 
Reba said:
You mean like when they made the Dred Scott decision?

Or maybe you meant Plessy vs. Ferguson?
Click to expand...

I think we have advanced a bit past 1892 when Plessy vs. Ferguson took place. At least, I would hope that our society is not as racist in thought, word, and deed as it was at that time. It would appear from what I am seeing, however, that we may be taking a few steps backward. However, we still have not reached the racist attitudes of 1892 in 2011.

The same can be said for the Dredd Scott decision in 1857.

You are attempting to look at history in isolation, without consideration for cultural norms in place at the time. We do not subscribe to the same racist attitudes in law today as we did in the 1800's.
 
Daredevel7 said:
My Cuban family is adamant about illegal immigrants. Now, for those who do not understand the first generation Cuban-American mentality, they are hardcore Republicans (JFK/Bay of Pigs is one reason why). So they are all for the stereotypical Republican-backed issues including illegal immigrants, EXCEPT for stuff like this. Why? Because they actually SEE and EXPERIENCE the results of laws like this. I can't even count how many times family members or people we know who were stopped and treated differently (not necessarily harshly) by the police or customs at the airport.

Now, if the law was the ONLY way we can fight illegal immigration, I'm sure my family would be all for it, but... it is so inefficient and they are just pissed that they are wasting their own tax dollars to pay for people to snuff out people like THEMSELVES!!!! Imagine that!

I really wish I could download this information Matrix-style into y'all's brains, so that you can see it. How can white people see and experience how often this happens? They just can't.
Click to expand...

Most legal immigrants are adamant about issues of illegal immigration. However, as your family, they are not supportive of laws that are racially biased toward those of a particular ethnic persuasion as a way to fight illegal immigration.

White people experience white priviledge in this country on such a consistent, continuous, and unconscious level that they become so comfortable with it that that are unable to step outside those white priviledge mindsets. They assume that all citizens of this country experience the same priviledge they do. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all.
 
TXgolfer said:
meh, at NSAD I had to show my audiogram and DL to prove I was deaf enough to play. The fact that I spoke and didn't sign much made it worse. I never minded proving it though. Even though an audiogram is a little more personal than a green card.

I think most people here know about being treated differently. The LDs get it from both sides.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue.
 
Jiro said:
not really. quite a world of difference. and it's not even in same category.

disability discrimination... eh it's nothing comparable to racism and bigotry that minorities had to deal with for thousands of years. I wouldn't exactly try to use deafness to imagine what it's like being a black person. It's something you can never understand and that's ok.
Click to expand...

Yep. The sad part is that he has no interest in even attempting to understand.
 
TXgolfer said:
:dunno: I don't see that checking legal status would take a great deal of time. And if SC is as serious about the II problem as others I am sure they won't put all their eggs in one basket.


@beo..... I would think not being to verify your identity would be a pretty good sign.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. You don't see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top