Friday, July 23, 2010

Report On Illegals And Crime

I found this report to be very interesting. It reminded me of a CDC report showing that 60% of new syphillis cases are from the 2% of the population that are homosexuals. Here, we see 9% of the AZ population are illegals from Mexico, and they constitute 22% of the violent crimes committed (at least in Maricopa County). There is a graph that lists various crimes to illustrate what percentage is committed by illegals. There is only one that is below that 9% mark that denotes the percentage of illegals, but almost every other crime shows higher percentages of illegals being arrested (by that I'm referring to higher percentage than the 9% who are illegal). If it was Congress instead of crime, they'd be over-represented, as they are so in nearly every crime category.

The costs are very high. The report is dealing with just one state or county, but of course, there are illegals all over the country. I wonder how the stats compare nationally. Some people speak of the financial benefits of illegals (actually they usually just say "immigrants" and group them all together) and I also wonder how those alleged economic bennies match up to all these costs of criminal activity, adding also NON-violent crimes, as well as other costs to our society like welfare-type assistance for illegals.

54 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

I think this would be a very reasonable matter to look at if we can discuss it reasonably.

Quickly, I'd offer this perspective from NPR...

And the fact is that crime has not increased in Arizona. In fact, it's gone down mostly. And the - and trying to blame illegal immigrants for rising crime crime, just isn't fair...

...this drug war on the southern side of the border and spilling over to the northern side. But that's not the illegal immigrant problem. And what happens is two thing - two things happen at the same time. Well, more illegal immigrants, more crime. Gee, it must be causal. But as you point out, it's not. It's something entirely different going on...


In short, this professor is noting that if crimes associated with the drug cartel in Mexico are causing an uptick in arrests of some immigrants here, that is not an indictment of all immigrants. That is a specific problem associated with illegal drug-related violence.

Associating these arrest stats with immigrants would be just as wrong as associating increased arrest stats for black folk with a problem with all black folk. We don't say, "Look, more black people are arrested for drug crimes, therefore there is a problem with black folk," (or at least I HOPE we wouldn't say that), why then, would we say "more immigrants have been arrested with drug charges lately, therefore, there is a problem with Mexicans (or immigrants or whoever)."

We have rules that cover violence. There is no great need to associate this with "illegal" immigrants.

Marshall Art said...

But it absolutely points to a need for tighter border security. The attached speaks of how many crimes are by illegals. Those percentages go down when illegals are unable to enter. You have to focus on what the report is saying and it doesn't speak "immigrants", it mentions "illegal immigrants".

It also isn't concerning itself with whether or not crime has risen or fallen in general as the first paragraph of your italicized quote does. Again, it speaks of how often a crime is committed by illegals as opposed to legals compared to the size of the percentage of the total population that exist. They are far more represented than their overall percentage of the population. If this was Congress and illegals were allowed representation there, they'd be way over-represented. Conversely, we hear far too often of one minority or other than is under-represented in Congress (as if it matters) and yet, with crime statistics there should be no concern that the 9% that are illegal are OVER-represented?

If there were no illegals, of course crime would be reduced further, and there'd be no possibility that they could increase crime. Plus, the money such people cost us would be put to use elsewhere.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, it speaks of how often a crime is committed by illegals as opposed to legals compared to the size of the percentage of the total population that exist. They are far more represented than their overall percentage of the population.

So, African Americans are over-represented in the penal system. Does this mean that we ought to ban African Americans from our nation?

Or does it have to do with how often poor folk end up in prison while rich folk don't even when they've committed the same crimes?

I say we enforce laws about actual criminal activity, but that being an immigrant ought not be a criminal activity.

Further, when you create "crimes" of generally non-harmful behaviors (being an immigrant, smoking marijuana), then you by that very action, create a more shadowy and, I'd guess, more inclined to criminal behavior subculture. Decriminalize non-harmful behaviors and you will reduce crime.

Wouldn't you think?

Marshall Art said...

"So, African Americans are over-represented in the penal system. Does this mean that we ought to ban African Americans from our nation?"

Only those who are ILLEGAL, which is what we're discussing here. American citizens who break the law are OUR problem. No one is talking about banning anyone who doesn't belong here, or anyone who is here legally EVEN if they end up breaking the law (with the exception of those legally here on visas who break the law---they should have their visas revoked and be sent home after making restitution).

"Or does it have to do with how often poor folk end up in prison while rich folk don't even when they've committed the same crimes?"

No, and that's an incredibly idiotic thing to bring into the discussion. It's idiotic within the context of its OWN discussion. Here it's more so. It has only to do with the fact that not only are people entering illegally, but they are committing crimes in greater proportion than those here legally. Try to stay focussed.

"I say we enforce laws about actual criminal activity, but that being an immigrant ought not be a criminal activity."

I say you're slipping into more idiotic thinking. Entering the country by means other than proper immigration protocols IS illegal and laws covering such activity isn't enforced nearly enough, which is why we have such an illegal immigrant problem. Moreover, being an "immigrant" ISN'T illegal, nor is it criminalized in any way. The people YOU are defending are not immigrants, they are invaders. They are entering this country in a manner that ignores our laws and sovereignty. The people WE welcome, the ones legitimately called "immigrants", respect our laws and procedures and enter in the manner WE find to be best for all concerned.

continuing next comment---

Marshall Art said...

"Further, when you create "crimes" of generally non-harmful behaviors (being an immigrant, smoking marijuana), then you by that very action, create a more shadowy and, I'd guess, more inclined to criminal behavior subculture."

This might be the most idiotic part of your last comment.


First of all, illegal entry is indeed harmful merely for denying our government from knowing exactly how many people are here and thus, how best to provide for them, be it representation, services already in place, etc. It is harmful by virtue of the fact that we cannot control who enters and whether or not it is beneficial to our society to welcome them. We have no control over their character or health or whether they will likely be a benefit or a burden. (The point here is not that we can with absolute certainty, but that we can't determine anything at all).

It's OK for YOU to just sit there and pretend there's no harm done, but then, you're not willing to do anything to provide for the extra tax dollars their presence demands aside from hitting on real producers in our society.

Next, you continue with the LIE that we're talking about "immigrants". YOU don't get to decide whether or illegals should be legal or not. Until the law changes, insulting immigrants by calling illegals equal to them is dishonest. Immigrants respected our laws in order to enter. Illegals did not.

Finally, creating laws doesn't not give any degree of justification for breaking those laws, and certainly no justification for breaking other laws. It is people like YOU who say illegals are "mostly law abiding people". The statistics suggest otherwise. Rather than rationalizing bad behavior with that lame suggestion, the reality is closer to this: they already found no problem breaking one law, that of sneaking in over border, they are likely to justify the breaking of other laws. Don't blame our nation and its laws when it's their own character that determines their behavior.

"Decriminalize non-harmful behaviors and you will reduce crime.

Wouldn't you think?"


No. I wouldn't. That is, you're premise is a poor one hastily crafted to defend your indefensible position. We could reduce crime by decriminalizing ALL illegal behaviors. But it ain't the laws that determine such things, it's the character of each individual. You make the stupid assumption that because they couldn't enter the country any other way than by sneaking (a lie in itself) that they are then forced to commit other crimes? How the hell does THAT make any sense?

Andrew Clarke said...

We have an issue with illegal immigration into Australia, as well. The extent is lower because we don't have land borders with any other country, but there is still a constant stream of people trying to get into Australia without getting legitimate permission. And the problem is that some do-gooders assume they are all sad and desperate refugees. This is obviously not the case. It has been found that some of them are criminals on the run, who are not made good people simply because they take risks getting into our country. Others of them make false claims about their origins. They are not fleeing persecution, just trying to get into Australia for their own advantage. A government has EVERY right to know exactly who is entering their nation, and some absurd arguments are used to try and justify the behaviour of illegals. As you say, breaking the law by entering illegally is in itself dodgy, not a good way to try and qualify for residency

Mark said...

Present.

Feodor said...

98% of serial killers are white men.

We should start detaining them.

Marshall Art said...

As long as you are one of them detained, Feo.

But even of total crimes committed, serial killing is a low percentage, thus a very tiny percentage of the entire white male population. However, given this info, which indicates the stupidity of your statement, for the police to suspect a new serial killer is a white guy demonstrates logic and intelligence on the part of the police, not racial prejudice.

And this points to another stupid canard, that profiling is racist and that AZ cops will stop people based on race or ethnicity, as opposed to breaking laws. They don't apply the word "profiling" properly or even understand it's meaning. It simply means that if they uncover, say, a human smuggling operation, their stats indicate the liklihood is high that the perpetrator is an illegal alien. Yet, this doesn't mean they don't allow for the possibility that in the new case someone else is to blame.

"Racial profiling" is in inaccurate term for what the police do, or need to do. "Racial profiling" is a term used to insinuate something that isn't happening. It suggests the old racist stereotyping that is not at play in police work. Idiots like Feo believe all white people are racists. THAT is racial profiling. What cops would do is find race to be one of many characteristics of a given perpetrator IF history has shown race matters to the profile of a perpetrator of a specific type of crime. This would be the case with serial killers as Feo pointed out in trying to deceptively make his stupid point. Since 98% are white guys, they'd assume that they are PROBABLY looking for a white guy, as well as considering other characteristics that further narrow their search.

To detain all white guys is an incredibly stupid suggestion (although TYPICALLY stupid---part of Feo's profile) that does not comport with the point of the AZ laws or profiling in general.

Feodor said...

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998)0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0


Instead of spending millions of dollars in court and enforcement costs, why don't we spend just hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the guns.

Then we reduce the crime you claim to be concerned about and save money. It's a twofer.

Marshall Art said...

It would be so nice if you could stay on topic, but I can't let stupidity go unchecked.

Our death by gun rate is largely a result of who has guns and who hasn't, together with a corrupted attitude about right and wrong, where poverty is held as a legitimate excuse for bad behavior, and "society" is given all the blame. When frauds who call themselves Christians find the backbone to once again speak the truth about morality, instead of throwing in with the worldly enablers of self-gratifications of all sorts, then we'll see crime of all sorts decline simply because we will have become as a nation, a better, more righteous people.

Feodor said...

"for the police to suspect a new serial killer is a white guy"

That is fine, Marshall, but you don't pick up on the fact that Arizona wants to make it, "if the police suspects a brown skinned person is a brown skinned person, they can ask that persons questions."

My point is that you should be detained simply for being white, since white men comprise 99% of all serial killers. There need not be any suspicion about killing.

And then you note that, given the numbers, we should not be alarmed about deaths by serial killings, but you blithely side step the enormous numbers killed by guns.

And you make a lot of extraneous excuses about gun deaths. When all you have to do is ask the families of the dead whether their loved on would be dead if we tightly controlled guns.

Duh.

Get rid of guns, let a lot of people live.

But the reason that both of these things are pertinent is how they are simple things that show how stupid it is to post policy opinions on simplistic statistics.

Marshall Art said...

"That is fine, Marshall, but you don't pick up on the fact that Arizona wants to make it, "if the police suspects a brown skinned person is a brown skinned person, they can ask that persons questions.""

You're obviously not paying attention. The law was ammended to remove all doubt about the intent behind it. Stopping people based on skin color is NOT allowed under the law. Skin color has NOTHING to do with the law, even taking into account the likelihood that a Spanish speaking person stopped for any violation and then unable to present identification is illegal. But what you don't want to believe is that those of us who support border enforcement, as well as enforcement of existing immigration laws, which this AZ law mirrors, also want white skinned illegals and asiam illegals and all other manner of illegals to be detained and deported as per federal statutes which the feds won't enforce. That most of them are Spanish speaking or hispanic looking is merely the result of sharing a border with the source of most illegals.

It is dishonest to assume that AZ cops will now scrutinize only those motorists that are hispanic looking simply because the law is in effect. They could have been doing that and applying state and local laws if racism was the underlying motivation. It's a cheap argument in order to avoid the real issue.

Thus, you're lame argument regarding detaining white guys because most serial killers are white guys is just another stupid statement I've come to expect from you. They're not going around suspecting every hispanic of being illegal, knowing full well that AZ has a larger amount of legal immigrants and citizens of hispanic heritage. So why would they think of detaining all hispanics?

Yet, if particular crimes are found to have been committed, the stats may dictate that for that crime, one aspect of the profile for the perpetrator may indeed be that he is likely to be hispanic. That would be "LIKELY", not automatically. And this is true even if they are responsible for 98% of the total arrested for that crime.

So no one's talking about detaining all of any group of people for anything. The report isn't even about that. It's about the fact that such a small percentage of the total population is responsible for most incidents of a given criminal activity. This small percentage happens to be the illegal population. This is significant considering the debate over how many illegals are committing crimes.

Thus, it has nothing to do with the fact that they are of a darker hue. It is that they are illegals. Frankly, considering the fact that they have already broken a law by their very presence, that entire 9% is guilty of committing a crime. That isn't true for the vast numbers of white males.

more coming---

Marshall Art said...

"And then you note that, given the numbers, we should not be alarmed about deaths by serial killings..."

Never said anything of the kind. "Not be alarmed about deaths by serial killings"? Pulled that right out of your butt, didn't you? You certainly didn't get that from anything I've said.

"...but you blithely side step the enormous numbers killed by guns.

And you make a lot of extraneous excuses about gun deaths."


Considering it's irrelevant to the topic, side stepping the issue of gun related deaths is warranted. I offered no "excuses", extraneous or otherwise. I stated facts behind the numbers you feel were relevant to the conversation. And they're important facts as well. You should learn them so that you don't speak from the butt about the issue.

"...all you have to do is ask the families of the dead whether their loved on would be dead if we tightly controlled guns."

And I'd likely get different responses. Of those who, without thinking (and in a highly emotional state that is likely), give a knee-jerk response regarding "too many guns on the street", I would ask them, once they've had time to calm down, how they'd feel if a third party, shot the killer before he could kill the loved one. I'd ask them if they'd be pleased such a person was there to save their loved one. I'd ask if they realize that it's harder to find such people when good people obey the laws that left the killer to kill with abandon.

And from that group of grieving people, I have no doubt I'd find those who support concealed carry laws, knowing the benefits such laws have brought to those states smart enough to enact them.

But for those that you think are likely to cry about "too many guns on the street", I'll match them up with every case of an innocent person being saved by having a gun present and ready, or by another person being nearby with a gun present and ready, or by merely demonstrating to the scumbag that he faces someone who is armed.

Our Constitution protects our right to bear arms. That means to carry them. To have a weapon on our person for self-defense. I don't care what other countries do. In other countries, they have no way of protecting themselves against their own governments. That is ALSO the reason the Constitution protects our right to bear arms.

And that ends the diversion from the topic.

Feodor said...

"... even taking into account the likelihood that a Spanish speaking person stopped for any violation..."a

Who is not paying attention? No violation has to be committed for an officer to detain someone for questioning. A suspicion in the mind of the officer is all that is needed.

Further, the Act explicitly states that the intention is to cause "attrition through enforcement" - in other words, intimidation.

These facts and motives are precisely why many Arizona law enforcement officers will target brown-skinned people and care less for whites and Asians (unless they are really poor and Arizona would not suffer without them, or, if they confuse an Asian for a Latino/a): the State is giving them a mandate to make an example, a show of force. And that's exactly what they will do. It's their profession, to an extent. We need such professional services for real crimes.

Of course no one is talking about detaining all brown people, Marshall. That would be illegal. So the Arizona legislature and governor get around it. They immigrate motives underground as it were.

Being an idiot, it's hard for you to recognize the acts of smart people, even, or especially when you agree with the outcome. You're easily manipulated. By your own.

Feodor said...

"Of those who, without thinking (and in a highly emotional state that is likely), give a knee-jerk response regarding 'too many guns on the street'..."

Ah, now your writing off the experiences of the bereaved. You're a prince, Marshall.

And then you want to sell them a chancy cure. Hey, how would you feel if the deceased was lucky enough to have a well trained, quick reflexed, patriotic gun owner present in your husband's garage when the thief shot him? Wouldn't you feel great!!!!

Tell me, Marshall, which makes you feel safer: Star Wars anti-missle technology or drastic nuclear arms reduction? One has been part of nuclear deterrence that has worked for a half century. The other has yet to prove it can what people like you want it to do.

Marshall Art said...

Your stupidity is showing once again, Feo, and I must say it's entertaining to see you try to pass it off as brilliance.

Nuclear arms reduction has NOT made us safer. Having nuclear arms of our own and a history of using them when we feel it necessary has. Try to pay attention. It is the ultimate example of concealed carry. We have not been hit because our enemies know we're well armed.

"...now your writing off the experiences of the bereaved."

No, stupid. I'm explaining what provokes the response you expect from them. What I'm NOT doing is offering an unworkable solution to prevent further incidents that leave such grieving people behind.

"Hey, how would you feel if the deceased was lucky enough to have a well trained, quick reflexed, patriotic gun owner present in your husband's garage when the thief shot him?"

Though I was referring to such a person PREVENTING the husband's death by the thief, being a half-step late and killing the thief after the husband is murdered would at least be immediate justice upon which the berieved might find some comfort. For myself, I would be more happy had such a person killed the thief first, a not too distant second would be for the thief to be killed by such a person right after.

"No violation has to be committed for an officer to detain someone for questioning. A suspicion in the mind of the officer is all that is needed."

It has to be "a reasonable" suspicion and this is true everywhere. But, if some cops are continually failing in court to prove their suspicions were reasonable, they won't be cops for long. If, in the meantime, illegals are exposed and deported, then some good will have come from the moral shortcomings of such cops.

"...the Act explicitly states that the intention is to cause "attrition through enforcement" - in other words, intimidation."

This is true of every law on the books throughout the land. If every law is enforced, fewer will attempt to break them. Proper enforcement of the law is SUPPOSED to be intimidating for the law-breaker. It isn't even a consideration for those who abide the law. To be stopped, even routinely, under suspicion of being illegal, is not great inconvenience when proper identification will satisfy every good cop.

You err by suggesting that by merely being hispanic, cops will be suspicious. Would that include cops of hispanic heritage? This is blatant race-baiting nonsense by a fool suffering from white guilt. Being such an idiot, you attempt to project upon the people of Arizona vile tendencies likely inherent in your own corrupt personality. To suggest that they want to harrass anyone, thus they create a law that gives them the room to do so, is an incredible leap of logic, and outrageously insulting toward people you don't even know and who's experiences you don't comprehend or care to understand.

Mark said...

Feodor, The law (which you obviously haven't read, which puts you in company with Eric Holder, Barack Hussein Obama, Janet Napolitano etc)states clearly that only if a police officer has already detained a suspect for some violation, and if he suspects the suspect of being an illegal alien, he may ask for identification. Then, and only then, may he ask for ID.

There is nothing in the law that states anyone has any right to detain and/or question anyone only because of his color, and I defy you to find such a clause within the law.

If you can find any language at all within the legislation that suggests a police officer can stop and interrogate someone just because his skin is other than white, I won't call you a moron.

So 98% of all serial killers are white men, eh? Assuming your figure is correct, Yes, If a police officer stops a white man for a minor traffic violation, he has the right to question that white man regarding possible serial murders. He doesn't have the right to stop the white man simply because he is white.

Your example reinforces the Arizona laws justification.

Go for it. I relish the opportunity to call you a moron.

Mark said...

I said, "if he suspects the suspect of being an illegal alien, he may ask for identification. Then, and only then, may he ask for ID."

I meant legal documentation that he is in the country legally.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

You misunderstand Feo. He's suggesting that those racist bastard Arizona cops will use the new AZ law in a manner that allows their bastard racist characters to find release upon the poor, saintly people of color in Arizona. To Feodor, every white person is a racist and since this law will impact a group of people who are mostly of hispanic origins, then that is all the proof one needs that Arizonans are racist. Get it?

Feodor said...

"... by merely being hispanic, cops will be suspicious."

Well, that depends. Do you mean "hispanic" in a Martin Sheen sort of way or a George Lopez sort of way?
__________

Lennie, a violation is not necessary. You're not catching on too well, are you?

Marshall Art said...

Feo,

He catches on better than you. "Reasonable" suspicion, "probable cause" can be judged and is all the time. They are not terms without definition or limitation in law. Put you go continue on with your falsehoods and you keep on assuming the worst about cops you don't even know. That's just so Christian-like for an alleged Christian like yourself.

Feodor said...

I see you didn't say, "violation" poser.

Mark said...

Slick, Feo. Only I'm not as dumb as your Liberal friends. I won't let you derail the discussion. I asked you a question. If you can't answer it, you must admit you are a moron.

Show us where in Arizona's proposed law where it gives law enforcement the right to stop someone merely because of the color of their skin.

I'll give you the thirty second liberal clock. Go.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marshall Art said...

Feo,

Please try to at least have a point when you lamely attempt to mock. I know you're not bright enough to have a decent point when you're trying to be intelligent, but your last comment provokes only a "So what?".

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

Shot clocks don't work well on blogs. One cannot tell when another is off-line trying to impress others with their annoying babble.

Feodor said...

Did the alarm on a liberal clock go off and nothing happened? I'm not surprised.

Whatever Lennie was trying to do, it's very nice of you, George, to intervene. You should tell Lennie (who only listens to your voice as his master) that if he wants to administer a test, he should make sure the students are in the classroom and that it's not a Friday afternoon. He'll always get poor results if he doesn't.

_____________________

George: "the likelihood that a Spanish speaking person stopped for any violation..."

Lennie: "states clearly that only if a police officer has already detained a suspect for some violation..."

What you two misfits refuse to acknowledge is that a "violation" is not necessary. The bar for detaining someone is lower than that. And some Arizona legislators and the governor want to use that low bar as an opportunity to invade the privacy of certain kinds of person (those who look and sound like George Lopez but not those who look and sound like Martin Sheen or Mike Myers or Jackie Chan) in order to catch a smaller number of particular persons who illegal immigrants, thereby thinking they may reduce criminal behavior committed by yet again a still smaller group of particular illegal immigrants.

And these criminals, nested within immigrants whose only crime has been to stay illegally and be hired to do jobs others wont, themselves nested within legal communities, all come from one direction only. The outrage towards illegal immigration is about one ethnicity only. This kind of blurring of the civil rights of one group legal citizens - in order to find illegal citizens who tend to have a certain range of looks and accents - has been legally rejected in this country as an immoral action to obtain ostensibly legal ends.

Our constitutional laws and amendments will not let this attack on human rights stand. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And making people defend their innocence because they come under suspicion for looking and sounding a certain way is immoral and illegal in the U.S.

One way conservatives could test the water for the truthfulness of this is to observe that, among recent immigrant populations, none are as likely to be conservative leaning and Christian as Spanish speakers. And none, these days, are as massed against this atrocious act of the Arizona government.

Arizona is pissing off it's brown citizenry. And doing so simply because it is using the color test to find illegal brown people living amongst legal brown people.

Sinful.

Feodor said...

Oh, and Marshall, tell me again how deterrence didn't work. That part really kills.

Marshall Art said...

You're making assumptions you can't back up, Feo. AND, you're insisting WE'RE saying something we're not. We're fully aware that no violation must have occurred. But "probable cause" to detain someone is not a whimsical proposition. As I said, if a judge determines a cop is claiming probable cause that don't meet a certain level of legitimacy, that is, the judge determines the cop is stopping people for racial reasons as opposed to legitimate examples of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion", that cop will not be on the street for very long.

YOU prefer to insist that AZ cops are not professionals who care about the quality of their work. YOU prefer to insist that they are nothing but a state full of racist bastards (apparently even the cops of hispanic heritage) who care only about harrassing Mexicans. YOU prefer to let violations stand rather than to risk the feos of the world calling you racist.

If the majority of the people invading through AZ's southern borders are spanish speaking, then obviously the likelihood of the illegals caught will be spanish speaking as well. YOU think that this means there's a racist element behind the righteous and logical profiling of the average illegal (even by cops of hispanic heritage).

This all works out perfectly for your racist tendencies, Feo. For the cops (even those of hispanic heritage) to do their jobs as they are supposed to do, idiots like you put them in a Catch 22 situation. Fortunately for the people that pay them, they ignore idiots like you and do their jobs (except for the libs among them who refuse).

Perhaps you could provide evidence that AZ cops are stopping hispanic looking people in a willy-nilly fashion. THAT would go a long way to at least suggesting that some cops are indeed racist in their behavior (though they may only be overly zealous in enforcing existing law). In Phoenix, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (what heritage is "Arpaio", anyway?) has been running sweeps in the enforcement of existing state law and will continue to do so. In those sweeps, of those detained, 60% were illegals. Of those remaining 40%? Obviously they proved they had a right to be where they were. Might they have been inconvenienced in doing so? Likely no more, or not much more, than any US citizen who wants to buy beer, or cash a check, or open an account with a bank or store, or than anyone pulled over for a minor traffic violation and then let go without a ticket.

I would also offer that there are likely thousands of spanish looking citizens who are NEVER suspected by the rat-bastard racist cops of AZ simply because they look like they're legal and belong.

And BTW, the Constitution does not protect "human" rights, but rather individual rights. There's a real difference that lefties aren't capable of understanding.

more-

Marshall Art said...

So Feo, until you can prove that cops are actually infringing on someone's rights by acting on "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" that any cop can explain to you if you would ask them to, I'd consider that a great trick. For sure, if you can prove that any AZ cop is stopping people for racist reasons, then you'd better get your sorry ass to AZ to give testimony. You certainly haven't come close to showing that's actually happening. You only assume guilt until innocence is proved. All you do is accuse as you do here:

"And making people defend their innocence because they come under suspicion for looking and sounding a certain way is immoral and illegal in the U.S."

When has that happened and who's doing it? We know who you accuse. Prove that you know what you're talking about.

Moving on, you believe most of the spanish speaking population leans conservative. But, they support liberal politicians. How do you explain that? Because conservatives are supposedly racist? That's a lie popular with the left and a charge more suitable for the left based on their policies and the effects of those policies on the very people they claim to champion. THAT is a very provable position for anyone honest enough to examine the facts objectively.

The only "brown" people being pissed off by AZ's policies are those that are breaking the law or in support of those who do. I've heard from enough legal hispanic citizens to know that not all are as stupid as you to think this is all racially motivated. (How racist to believe so!)

And what the hell are you talking about here:

"Oh, and Marshall, tell me again how deterrence didn't work."

Are you talking about nukes again? I think the stupidity of yours on this is thinking arms reduction is the deterrent action. What a dope! HAVING nukes is. Violent crime has gone down in states with concealed carry protected. That's deterrence!

Also, I know you get great amusement by calling Mark and me by other names. You think that is demeaning. We consider the source. At the same time, I thought of straying from Of Mice And Men to Laverne & Shirley and call you "Squiggie" (provoked by your use of the name "Lennie"). But then I realized that to do so would be a major step up from "Feodor". Nothing I could call you would denote braindead stupidity as well as "Feodor", except perhaps your real name.

Mark said...

Feo, Again. I asked you a question, and you've had much more than 30 seconds to come up with an answer. If you can't answer the question even with an unlimited amount of time, you obviously don't have an answer. And why don't you have an answer? because there is no language in the law that says Police officers have the right to stop someone merely because they are brown skinned.

I have proved you are either a liar or don't know what you're talking about.

Or, more likely, you are a moron.

Feodor said...

I'm sorry, Lennie, that you keep missing me so much. Apparently you need some friends.

So, what is the question, again? Does the Arizona law - part of which has been blocked - say that "Police officers have the right to stop someone merely because they are brown skinned'? Is that your question, Lennie?

Well, even a moron would know that such bare assed language would never pass any legislature since such language is clearly unconstitutional.

Not much of a question, is it?

Kind of like asking if Shakespeare lived among the medieval people who spoke in his sonnets when they ordered the bear to dance.

Marshall Art said...

The point, feotwit, is that if that kind of bare-assed language is not in the bill, then what evidence do you have to accuse any AZ cop or official of racist intention? You have none. You simply take the position that they are racists because you're a false priest who has your head up your ass as regards the importance of border security and the regulation of immigration. YOU'RE the unmitigated bonehead making allegations about the law and its enforcers being racist, about it all revolving around the color of someone's skin. And since you're an idiot, it's reasonable to begin inquiries to you with idiotic questions that reflect your idiotic position on the issue.

See how stupid you look when you try to be clever? That's because you're not.

And of course now you lie about the statements made regarding medieval people. Here's how THAT went down, fraud:

First, you claimed that Billy Shakes wrote in a cryptic manner.

Then, Mark stated he wrote in a manner common to that periods pattern of speech,

Then, you pretended you were always referring to his poetry when nothing in your original statement suggested such a thing. This makes you a liar, which is typical of a false priest.

See how stupid you look when you try to be clever? That's because you're not.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

So, Feo, your answer to my question is "There is nothing in the law that says that."

That's what I thought. I know that's not exactly what you said, but if you had, I could at least give you credit for being honest.

Your supposition that the law is racist is wrong. Now, shut up. You are irrelevant.

Feodor said...

Marshall, you have cognitive problems? Lennie was asking if the law explicitly speaks in terms of color. Why he was asking I have no idea. It does not speak in terms of color and I never said it did. His point escapes the conditions of being a point... as usual.

You, however, have claimed that, "the law was ammended to remove all doubt about the intent behind it." Apparently a US District Judge did find the amendments good enough. The ruling blocked the controversial parts of the law that could be used to wrongly arrest legal immigrants and citizens.

So, I support a US District Court Judge and you support... Lennie. Brilliant.

By the way, either of you guys familiar with poll tax laws, literacy laws, character laws and the eight box voting laws? No mention of race in any one of them. Guess what they were for?
______________

As for Lennie, he wrote that people of the medieval age spoke just like Shakespeare wrote... two hundred years later.

I wrote that some of the best writers I've read write with such brilliance and a desire to challenge their readers that it takes more than one reading to get it all. Shakespeare's sonnets and plays are part of this lineage. It's why he is still studied... we haven't gotten everything, yet. So, too, I would put the Gospel writers and much of Holy Scripture... not just Job or Revelation or the Song of Solomon, none of which anyone understands fully.

In fact, Mark presents Jesus himself as a cryptic preacher. Read it again, Marshall, and count how many times Mark has Jesus speaking in a way that keeps away from full disclosure from the crowds and even, at times, the disciples themselves. It's called the Messianic secret and is thought to be a literary device.

You may enjoy the Gospel more now that you now a little more. It's amazing how further re-readings of great works just keep revealing wonders.

So if speaking cryptically served the faith in the NT, I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand like you with your stack of Beck books on your "reading" table.

Marshall Art said...

Feodork,

I know what Mark was asking and why. That isn't a mystery at all. I say again that you are insisting that the AZ law is based on racism and offer no proof or evidence in support of that most unChristian charge. Mark was hoping his simple question would lead to justification for your position. The problem is that there is no justification for your hateful position. Mark knows this as well as I do.

"The ruling blocked the controversial parts of the law that could be used to wrongly arrest legal immigrants and citizens."

Try to explain how that's possible. You're supporting a well-meaning judge who's making the same demeaning assumptions about professional law enforcement personnel as you are. I'M supporting the people of AZ and those who crafted the bill, not Mark, you dipshit.

"As for Lennie, he wrote that people of the medieval age spoke just like Shakespeare wrote... two hundred years later."

No, bile-for-brains. Mark wrote that Shakespeare wrote in the manner people of his time spoke. You then changed the goal posts to focus only on Shakespeare's sonnets. Don't try to dance your way out of this, you fraudulent fool. It won't work.

And speaking of dancing, you continue to tap your feet to the tune of your one note composition, that rather than you having a hard time understanding what you read, that it must be the author purposely "trying to challenge you". Right. Good luck trying to sell that.

"It's called the Messianic secret and is thought to be a literary device."

It's relatively new concept that doesn't mean Mark was trying to be cryptic, or that even Jesus was. Some think it was Mark adding to the story something that would have allowed those of his time, who might have actually known Jesus and that He was born nearby, to believe that He was the Messiah when He never actually ever said He was.

I've heard the "Messianic secret" explained a few different ways, but never that it was a "literary device". It seems you don't understand that anymore than you understand anything else you read.

It's really not a matter of how easily anyone, even an idiot like you, can understand what is written, or whether or not anyone continues to derive new or different meanings from a text upon second readings. The question is if it is commonplace for anyone to purposely write in a cryptic manner in order to "challenge" the reader as opposed to simply writing in a manner that is challenging to some, especially idiots like you. You've not made that case. You've only admitted that you cannot easily understand what you read.

Even Christ, who would use parables, didn't use them to be cryptic, but instead lamented that He even had to sometimes explain them to His apostles. But they were meant to enlighten, not to confuse even though some were confused. Obviously there were plenty of feodors around in His time.

And BTW, I've never read anything by Beck. But you should read his stuff. Just have someone explain them to you.

Feodor said...

"I'M supporting the people of AZ..."

Hey, shit for brains, the people of Arizona were not allowed to vote on the measure. That's why it's called SB for Senate Bill. It's a partisan measure. With racist undercurrents.

By the way, raising questions of racism is a moral issue and has no special relationship with Christianity, which has as horrible a history with racist tendencies as any other faith.

And pardon me if I don't find you a credible judge of discrimination. Or really a credible judge of much at all, but especially of racist opportunities. You can't see your in-born, and probably inbred, privileges. So that leaves you out.

Marshall Art said...

"Hey, shit for brains, the people of Arizona were not allowed to vote on the measure."

First of all, why are you calling me by your name? Secondly, polls show that something like 70% or better of the AZ population support Bill 1070. THAT'S how I know I'm supporting the people of AZ.

"By the way, raising questions of racism is a moral issue and has no special relationship with Christianity, which has as horrible a history with racist tendencies as any other faith."

ALL moral issues have a special relationship with Christianity since God is the source of all that is good and moral. Christianity has no evidence of racial tendencies whatsoever. You must mean that some racists have bastardized Christianity in order to support their racist tendencies, such as the KKK and Black Liberation Theology.

"And pardon me if I don't find you a credible judge of discrimination."

Not a problem. I pardon stupid people all the time. I concede it's harder to do in YOUR case since you revel in your stupidity as you do.

I have no experience of having had any opportunities extended to me soley on the basis of my race. If they're out there, I have no idea where. I wish I did. I could use the job. It would afford me both food on the table as well as an opportunity to share God's message of love for all.

"You can't see your in-born, and probably inbred, privileges."

It's not that I can't see such things, which isn't unusual considering how rare such things are in today's world, but that YOU see them where they don't exist, like so many racist black people do. It's the common excuse for failure amongst the less intelligent among the black population. If only I had such a ready excuse when I tire of the hunt for success. Except that it wouldn't change the reality of my plight, which is that I have needs that I have yet to meet and thus must perservere.

In the meantime, you have still not proven that racism is behind 1070 or the within the people that crafted it, hope to enforce it, or support it. It's only you making cheap accusations about people you don't know in order to appear to be caring.

All those books...all that education...

Feodor said...

"Secondly, polls show.."

Ah, polls. Well, if I'd known you'd have polls on your side... Now, I wonder who those pollsters call and talk to at night for a half hour, asking questions?

Why the good people of Arizona, of course.
____________________

"Christianity has no evidence of racial tendencies whatsoever."

God, Marshall, you have no shame in appearing so willfully stupid. We could start late in the game and talk about our founding fathers.

But why be so long-winded when we conveniently have you: "like so many racist black people do."

Man, talk about self-revelation... and proving my point.

Marshall Art said...

"Ah, polls. Well, if I'd known you'd have polls on your side... Now, I wonder who those pollsters call and talk to at night for a half hour, asking questions?

Why the good people of Arizona, of course."


You're the dope who said Arizonans didn't get to vote. But polls are a form of voting and though I'm not one to give TOO much credence to polls, numbers like 70% ARE compelling. But it's so typical of you to suspect that the polls were only taken of white people. What an incredibly slanderous charge, to say that polls are done is such a manner without proof to back it up. You constantly convict, without any evidence, people you don't even know, people who don't have a reputation for racism of being racist. What a cretin you are.

"God, Marshall, you have no shame in appearing so willfully stupid. We could start late in the game and talk about our founding fathers."

What is so stupid about defending the religion you so nastily malign? NOW, as the dishonest low-life you are, move from knocking the religion to pointing to people who claim to adhere to it. Is this not similar to what I said right after

"Christianity has no evidence of racial tendencies whatsoever."?

are you that slimey that you can't even agree to a point you yourself are now trying to make? You're a freakin' joke. And how like the weiner lefty who's argument is failing horribly to go back in time to support a position relative to current events. Why not use the Crusades, Feo? That'll help you out! (Like hell it will)

"But why be so long-winded when we conveniently have you: "like so many racist black people do."

Are you now going to try and pretend there exist no black racists? Is that really what an allegedly highly educated intellectual has stooped so low to suggest? Do you feel physical pain each time you drop you guard long enough to face the fact that you're such a pathetic twit?

All those books!!! All that education!!! I've not attended college or university. I've likely read far fewer books than you. And yet, for all your supposed studies, you have to be one of the stupidest people I've had the misfortune to come across. You are a complete buffoon!! It's fascinating to me just how true that is. I've met people who didn't finish grade school who have more smarts than you. No wonder you're such an arrogant asshole. You HAVE to be to have any hope of forgetting what you really are---a total idiot!! If not for the laughs you provide, I'd delete every comment you make. You don't even provide a challenge.

What other stupid attempts have you got?

Feodor said...

"But polls are a form of voting..."

God, what a colossal imbecile!!!!!

Polls notoriously underrepresent the working class and the non-white. As the hispanic population alone makes up 30% of Arizona's total, a poll on the issue of the act is impossibly unreliable.

Not to mention that any source you use to cite polling has to be taken with a grain of shit.

You an inveterate blowhard.

Feodor said...

No question I'll malign a religion when it goes so far wrong. You're problem is that you're a Pharisee: you confuse Christianity for Christ.

All those Christian slaveholders and the economies of hundreds of thousands of church goers and the sermons of thousands upon thousands of clergy from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries would just love you.

Feodor said...

"NOW, as the dishonest low-life you are, move from knocking the religion to pointing to people who claim to adhere to it. Is this not similar to what I said right after

"Christianity has no evidence of racial tendencies whatsoever."?

are you that slimey that you can't even agree to a point you yourself are now trying to make?"


????????????????


Are you drinking already?

Feodor said...

Between the stupid, "there exist no black racists" and the racist, "like so many racist black people do" and the awkwardly ignorant, "It's the common excuse for failure amongst the less intelligent among the black population..." there are so many other appropriate, analytical, helpful and moral things to say.

None of which you are aware of.

Sail on, nigger, with your nigger working mind.

Feodor said...

Marshall, I apologize. If you're drinking at 4:30 that's just fine.

Marshall Art said...

"Polls notoriously underrepresent the working class and the non-white"

Had you said that polls notoriously underrepresent the American public, I would have agreed, which is what I don't ordinarily put much stock in polls. But now you're just race-baiting. PROVE they don't adequately represent the working class and non-whites. PROVE that's true for even half the polls out there.

"Not to mention that any source you use to cite polling has to be taken with a grain of shit."

Why? I've never cited any particular poll. I've cited polls in general. I haven't heard of any poll that goes the other way.

"No question I'll malign a religion when it goes so far wrong."

Then you should be maligning Islam, as they've gone wrong since its inception. But you won't do that, fraud. Instead, you'll be happy to jump on the Mormons.

Still, you can't malign Christianity because it doesn't lead to anything but Jesus. You're just trying to blame It for the sins of some adherents, as if they're being Christian makes them perfect and never likely to go astray. If you were a Christian, you'd know that's stupidity. (Is a stupid person like Feo capable of every knowing stupitidy when he sees it? Hmmm.)


"You're problem is that you're a Pharisee: you confuse Christianity for Christ.'

That's funny.

"????????????????"

The most honest thing you've ever said. Admitting that you don't understand is a good first step to coming to grips with your own stupidity. Good for you, Feo. I'm rootin' for ya.

I never said "there exist no black racists". Why apply that to me? I did knock those who suggest such a thing, though. Learn to read. Ask for clarification when you don't understand, even though I don't have that kinda time.

What do you find ignorant about

"It's the common excuse for failure amongst the less intelligent among the black population..."

Have you never heard of Jerimiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, the head of the New Black Panthers? These less than intelligent boobs always play the race card. Do you think they have no followers? Racism is their excuse for all the world's ills. Oh...that's right...you agree with these idiots.

But you are right. "there are so many other appropriate, analytical, helpful and moral things to say..." than to assume racism is at the heart of all one's troubles. Also, there are so many other appropriate, analytical, helpful and moral things to say..." than to call anyone "nigger", a word that I'm sure your imaginary black wife can tell you is not very nice for a non-black person to be throwing around. (What a fraud that anyone would use their alleged mixed-marriage to justify his use of such a term, to think he has any legitimate right to use such a term, to suppose that his weak explanation for why he uses such a term would be in any way considered acceptable by truly educated men or men of compassion and reason. Only a false priest would think so. Only a fraud and a race-baiter would think so. Only one corrupted by white guilt would think so. All those books...all that education...and Feo's imaginary wife has an asshole for a husband. I even feel sorry for his imaginary wife. That's how pathetic he is.)

Feodor said...

"You're just trying to blame It for the sins of some adherents...'

Some? You don't understand history do you, Marshall? Sad.

Four hundred years, all the Christian nations of Europe and the Americas. And through all that time and all that real estate, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Restoration Movement, most of the Anabaptist movement... Christians all.

Millions of the faithful, hundreds of thousands of clergy, thousands of church leaders, billions of hours of sermons through all that time over all that real estate... arguing in defense of slavery, in defense of the superiority of the white race, and doing so from scripture.

What is Christianity, Marshall? It is not Christ. Therefore it cannot be perfect. No one is good but God, right? Christianity is the religion of belief in Christ. And as such it is not perfect. There have been many epochs, many historical situations were Christianity or various movements and regions of it, where Christian faith got things massively wrong.

Slavey was supported by "some" Christians, you say? Some. Some - meaning most- Germans and Italians and Poles and French carried out a world war and a holocaust. Some - meaning the whole - of The German Evangelical Church supported the Nazi government.

When did "some" come to mean the majority or all? You have a clue as to the use of English words, Marshall?
_________

As for English words, do I yet again have to lecture you, Marshall, on the word, "nigger"? You say it's "not very nice for a non-black person to be throwing around"? Are you inferring that it's nice for a black person to be throwing around? Or are you confusing "nigger" with "niggah"?

Once again, Marshall, nigger is a white word. White people made it up out of the stuff running around in white minds in order to justify white control of power institutions and wreaking immoral violence via those institutions. It's our word to use, to tell the truth about. And so I do. I use to tell the truth about it.

My wife tells me she married me in part because I'm smart. But she loves me, so it doesn't go to my head.

How about your wife? She wanted to marry a nigger?

Marshall Art said...

"Millions of the faithful, hundreds of thousands of clergy, thousands of church leaders, billions of hours of sermons through all that time over all that real estate... arguing in defense of slavery, in defense of the superiority of the white race, and doing so from scripture."

Hyperbole, anyone? And really, Feodork. "Billions" of hours of sermons? You seem to take the position that everyone thought alike for hundreds of years, with absolutely none seeing the truth of Christ's teachings. What's funny is that you actually think you could ever know such a thing, or that anyone else could, either. You're an idiot.

But let's set aside your white guilt for a second and suppose you've got it nailed (even the "billions of hours of sermons" bit). You still have not shown that it is Christianity as opposed to Christians at fault here. You want to make a case that Christianity is worthy of being maligned (as if YOU are worthy of the task) for something it never taught. It NEVER preached slavery. EVER. But you are too stupid to understand simple language.

I use "some" in relation to the entire history of Christianity, Bozo. You're a race baiter to assume that Christianity ever taught or supported slavery. It doesn't matter if ALL Christians, including the Apostles state categorically that Christ preached slavery, the fact remains it doesn't and never did. You sound like a freakin' atheist (you're certainly not a Christian) when you make such stupidly false statements.

What is Christianity? It is the teachings of Jesus Christ. Find me that part where He taught that we should enslave anyone. Are going to offer me Paul again, who also never preached such a thing? Are you going to give me Paul because he taught how the slave and the slave holder should act to try and say that was sanctioning slavery? The stupid just keeps on comin'!

"You say it's "not very nice for a non-black person to be throwing around"? Are you inferring that it's nice for a black person to be throwing around?"

Speaking of English words, dumb-shit, the correct word would have been "Are you implying that it's nice for a ...etc". You, being the cretin you are, always hoping for evil from those who see right through you, inferred from my comment that which the context from which you ripped the phrase can't support. I certainly can't speak for what your imaginary black wife might find appropriate for other blacks to say. So many have no issue with blacks referring to each other by that term. I know you are trying to pretend there's some difference based on who's saying it and how they pronounce it, but that's a load of crap. Not surprising considering the source. "Nigger" is a corruption of the work "negro", which I think Mark was kind enough to explain to you already. And most southern people I've heard use the term pronounce it "niggah" a well.

"It's our word to use, to tell the truth about. And so I do. I use to tell the truth about it."

First of all, you have not shown any understanding of truth in the whole time you've sullied my blog with your presence. And you certainly don't understand the truth of race relations.

"My wife tells me she married me in part because I'm smart."

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! AHHHH-HAHAHAHA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!! HAHHH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAHAHAHA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! OH MY GO-HA-HA-HA-HA-HASH!!!!I'LL BET SHE DOES!!!HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!WHAT ELSE DOES SHE TELL YA??!!!

Oh, man!! That's some imaginary wife you've got there. Tell me: does she say that with a straight face?? Good gosh, what putz!

Marshall Art said...

I'm really pretty bored with you Feodrek. Past bored, really. I've given you rope enough by which you've hung yourself repeatedly. You offer nothing here but rank stupidity. You are NOT smart. You are not wise. You are not clever enough to insult me or show me I've ever been wrong. Your positions are pathetic and lacking in logic or common sense. You're what I'd imagine a syphillitic boil might feel like. So run along and come back when you've got something meaningful or intelligent to say. Borrow something from someone since you can't seem to come up with anything yourself.

Mark said...

Feodork boasts, "My wife tells me she married me in part because I'm smart. But she loves me, so it doesn't go to my head."

I would agree with this statement. Whatever smarts Feo possesses haven't gone to his head. His ass, maybe, but certainly not his head.

Feodor said...

Hah hah!! (in a high-pitched, girly tone of delight!).

I do love to see you guys dissemble and disassembled! This was great to wake up to, thanks.

I'm afraid I don't have time to see you guys get it back together, so your wish, George is actually coming true: I'm off on a trip to Provence and Paris later today. Fun trip plus I'm going to show a black girl a good time.

Remember, be nice to the psych assistants (I was one back in graduate school days). Things will go so much better for you.

Keep on truckin', George.

Marshall Art said...

Again proving his incredible stupidity, Feo departs believing himself to be a victor. So horribly sad.