Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies/Teachers with Accents

[CJB]

What if there was an all inclusive scholarship funded from taxpayers money that ONLY paid for hearing people's college.

Suppose this hearing person had that scholarship for basically just being "hearing".

Here is a similar example:

Scholarships for Illegal Immigrants | CollegeGenie.com

Apples and oranges.

Hearing people are the majority.

Latinos are the minority.

A better analogy would be a deaf scholarship. And there are many ones out there.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Government scholarships or private ones?

You can't tell individuals, institutes and businesses who to gets their scholarships. Government ones, you can make a ruckus about though.

 

[kokonut]

Financial aid is generally not available for undocumented students and illegal aliens. The majority of all student aid, including Federal student aid, requires the recipient to be a US citizen or permanent resident (green card holder) or an eligible non-citizen. There are, however, a few states that allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates. There are also several private scholarships available to undocumented students.

FinAid | Other Types of Aid | Scholarships for Undocumented Students

 

[Steinhauer]

Now, for my final point, then I really need to get some zzzzzz's.

What if there is a hearing person (foreigner) who pays tuition (taxes) and registered with Gallaudet (became a legal citizen of the US) and learned ASL (English) to communicate. What if this hearing person (citizen) is working towards a degree (or simply working) to become a productive member (citizen) of the Deaf Community (United States).

THAT is a LEGAL IMMIGRANT comparison. That is NOT the type of person(s) being targeted with Arizona's new law.

The type of person(s) being targeted is comparable to my previous example.

Now, is it fair for this "legal" hearing person to have gone through all the necessary and lawful procedures to have another hearing person at Gally whom is "unlawful"?

Is it ethical?

If your answer is "yes" you really need to be banned from teaching ethics.

 

[Steinhauer]

Apples and oranges.

Hearing people are the majority.

Latinos are the minority.

A better analogy would be a deaf scholarship. And there are many ones out there.

What if hearing were the minority? Is it still ethical?

Should the hearing conform to the legal practice of the majority, or should the majority conform to the lawlessness of the minority?

Kindly notice I left out LEGAL Immigrants.

 

[CJB]

Now, for my final point, then I really need to get some zzzzzz's.

What if there is a hearing person (foreigner) who pays tuition (taxes) and registered with Gallaudet (became a legal citizen of the US) and learned ASL (English) to communicate. What if this hearing person (citizen) is working towards a degree (or simply working) to become a productive member (citizen) of the Deaf Community (United States).

THAT is a LEGAL IMMIGRANT comparison. That is NOT the type of person(s) being targeted with Arizona's new law.

The type of person(s) being targeted is comparable to my previous example.

Now, is it fair for this "legal" hearing person to have gone through all the necessary and lawful procedures to have another hearing person at Gally whom is "unlawful"?

Is it ethical?

If your answer is "yes" you really need to be banned from teaching ethics.

I don't think I answered directly anywhere that any one deed is ethical or unethical. I'm just trying to see all sides of the story.

I understand why people are anti-illegal immigration. The whole taking up our resources unfairly ordeal. What I don't understand is how anyone can't see the racism that fuels the illegal immigration issue. Yes, there are legitimate points there. But they are intensified and hypercharged with racist attitudes.

 

[kokonut]

Though by entering a country intentionally without any proper documents is breaking the law, thus a crime has been committed. Thusly more, makes him or her a criminal.

 

[CJB]

Though by entering a country intentionally without any proper documents is breaking the law, thus a crime has been committed. Thusly more, makes him or her a criminal.

Of course. THe issue is about whether that's all one sees. A person who murders for pleasure and a person who murders in defense are both criminals for committing murder, but there are still distinctions to be made. There's more to the story than "criminal."

 

[Steinhauer]

I don't think I answered directly anywhere that any one deed is ethical or unethical. I'm just trying to see all sides of the story.

I understand why people are anti-illegal immigration. The whole taking up our resources unfairly ordeal. What I don't understand is how anyone can't see the racism that fuels the illegal immigration issue. Yes, there are legitimate points there. But they are intensified and hypercharged with racist attitudes.

I honestly do not understand the correlation being made. If the bill targeted Hispanics, then I could see your point. It isn't, its targeting illegals.

Illegal is not a race.

 

[Steinhauer]

Of course. THe issue is about whether that's all one sees. A person who murders for pleasure and a person who murders in defense are both criminals for committing murder, but there are still distinctions to be made. There's more to the story than "criminal."

There is NOT more to this story. Killing in self defense is NOT murder.

There are legal avenues one can take to become a U.S. Citizen for the very purpose of this "self defense" argument you are trying to make. I helped an individual become a U.S. Citizen legally under those very same circumstances (his hometown was over run by a Muslim militia and his entire family was killed - he was rescued by the Red Cross).

Cultural Orientation Resource Center: US Refugee Program


there is absolutely NO EXCUSE .... NONE.

 

[CJB]

I honestly do not understand the correlation being made. If the bill targeted Hispanics, then I could see your point. It isn't, its targeting illegals.

Illegal is not a race.

That's the worst part. Most people doing it don't realize their opinions are informed by subconscious racist attitudes. Of course it's not blatant to the point that it's written into law. The whole point is that it is just below the radar.

 

[CJB]

There is NOT more to this story. Killing in self defense is NOT murder.

There are legal avenues one can take to become a U.S. Citizen for the very purpose of this "self defense" argument you are trying to make. I helped an individual become a U.S. Citizen legally under those very same circumstances (his hometown was over run by a Muslim militia and his entire family was killed - he was rescued by the Red Cross).

Cultural Orientation Resource Center: US Refugee Program


there is absolutely NO EXCUSE .... NONE.

If killing in self-defense, a given circumstance, isn't murder, couldn't one argue given certain circumstances, illegal immigration isn't criminal? A lot of people would argue that killing in self-defense is still killing and therefore murder. It's just an analogy to show circumstances change the ethical landscape.

 

[Steinhauer]

That's the worst part. Most people doing it don't realize their opinions are informed by subconscious racist attitudes. Of course it's not blatant to the point that it's written into law. The whole point is that it is just below the radar.

I take racism very seriously. Any LEO that deports a "legal" Hispanic, should be fired and deported to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico IMHO.

With the entire country watching, do you think any LEO will get away with such behavior?

 

[flip]

There is NOT more to this story. Killing in self defense is NOT murder.

There are legal avenues one can take to become a U.S. Citizen for the very purpose of this "self defense" argument you are trying to make. I helped an individual become a U.S. Citizen legally under those very same circumstances (his hometown was over run by a Muslim militia and his entire family was killed - he was rescued by the Red Cross).

Cultural Orientation Resource Center: US Refugee Program


there is absolutely NO EXCUSE .... NONE.

Yes, there are excuses. In the past, when I was younger, I helped a few illegal immigrants from racistic states, like Israel, Algerie/Western Sahara and former South Africa, to become legal immigrants. The reasons was ethical.

BUT, an individual can claim it's no excuses if the person lack basic background information or are in a state of denial. That's understandable, but not acceptable.

​

 

[Steinhauer]

If killing in self-defense, a given circumstance, isn't murder, couldn't one argue given certain circumstances, illegal immigration isn't criminal? A lot of people would argue that killing in self-defense is still killing and therefore murder. It's just an analogy to show circumstances change the ethical landscape.

Yes, one could argue that.

Suppose someone robs you, you pull a gun, shoot the robber. The robber then falls down wounded. You walk over to the wounded robber, and shoot the rest of your bullets killing the robber.

THAT is murder, not self defense.

Its the same situation when one "discovers" (I find that fishy) that they are illegal immigrants. When they continue to violate U.S. law, for years, it is criminal.

 

[kokonut]

Of course. THe issue is about whether that's all one sees. A person who murders for pleasure and a person who murders in defense are both criminals for committing murder, but there are still distinctions to be made. There's more to the story than "criminal."

Doesn't excuse fact that one broke a law...intentionally. And the consequences that go with it.

 

[kokonut]

Aiding and abetting a known criminal is a crime unto itself.

 

[CJB]

Its the same situation when one "discovers" (I find that fishy) that they are illegal immigrants. When they continue to violate U.S. law, for years, it is criminal.

How is that fishy on the part of the person finding out? It's fishy for the parents to not tell their own child till they're 16 or 18, but if the child only finds out themselves that late in the game and then goes on to try to become legal, I don't see how that's fishy at all. I'd say that's the responsible thing to do.

 

[CJB]

Doesn't excuse fact that one broke a law...intentionally. And the consequences that go with it.

Doesn't excuse it but there are factors to be taken into account. It does change the moral and ethical landscape.

 

[kokonut]

Which is why the southern border should have been secured first. And then deal with the internal problems next. Until that happens we will have to continually deal with criminals.