The premise of this article is misleading, since it's based on a search warrant that was at best overzealous. During these interviews, there are an entire battery of questions asked, and at the end, the interviewer usually says, "Are you withholding any information now that could disqualify you from employment as a police officer?" In this case, for some reason this question caused a negative physical response. It could have had to do with *ANY* of the questions asked in the interview, or a pocket knife that the guy stole from a friend as a kid, and not the child porn question. And, polygraphs produce false positives, which is why courts refuse to allow them as evidence. For Durham police to use this as basis for a search warrant is grasping (though it happens all the time), and for the Indy to use it to allege that Faggart lied about how much porn he downloaded is libelous. All of the evidence suggests that Faggart told the truth about simply being curious. It's sad that anyone who happened to use poor judgment in life and applies for a job as a cop may now face public humiliation from the Indy.
Sue (or Dolly), your arguments are so stupid that I wonder if you graduated high school. I know you've never taken an economics class, or bothered to read an economics book. First, no one is living in your garage or in your backyard, so telling Lisa to adopt an immigrant (like they're pets or something) is asinine. Illegal immigrants are paying rent, most likely to Americans. They're buying groceries, clothes, and other goods and services from stores that -- yes, that's right -- employ Americans. Second, and I'll go slow for you, the 12-20 million illegal immigrants that are here are here because there is 'demand' for them (demand is one of those economics words). A lot of businesses, big and small, need people to work for them to 'produce' stuff. America as a whole benefits from the stuff being 'produced' and the money that is generated. Now, there aren't enough Americans ('supply') to fill those jobs (and no, there aren't enough unemployed people to fill those roles either, but you will have to actually read unemployment data to understand that, and I know that you won't). So, the people are here working for American businesses of all sizes -- the same kinds of businesses that have made this country the wealthiest on the planet -- because they're needed. What aren't needed are the ridiculous immigration laws that didn't even exist when you were born; powers that our Founders saw fit to exclude from the federal government's proper role. I noticed by reading the other website you and your friends are recruiting from to post here that nopcism, or chexfive, actually moved recently. He left one city, to go to another to live, presumably to have a better life. What's the f'ing difference between that and someone from Mexico trying to do the same? The only difference is stupid government intervention, and your insane fear. You only feel threatened because you are probably at the bottom of the income scale, and you might have to work harder to keep your job in the face of immigrant competition.
grayson, I disagree. Censorship is when one group employs political power - whether through government or another means - to silence another. Freedom of speech implies that it is legal to use ethnic slurs (or profanity, or nude photos, or whatever you want) to attract people to your bar. A personal distaste for those slurs is irrelevant, just as a personal distaste for homosexuality is irrelevant. In situations where the weak are silenced by the powerful, someone probably started out by asking your question, "[Is it ok for them to say that?]" Who should be allowed to answer that, except for an individual? The professor here already answered for herself, but apparently wants something more. That sentiment is more dangerous to freedom than any slur.
The Constitution? If you voted for it, you should take the time to read it. I've taken an oath to defend it at least a dozen times, and I carry a copy of it in my pocket. Since you are apparently unfamiliar with some of its specifics, I'll explain something to you, nopcism: The Founding Fathers saw fit to exclude the federal government from controlling immigration or naturalization. They understood the economic and moral value of allowing people to come to America without restriction. There is no provision or clause in the Constitution outlining who can or cannot come to live and work in the United States. 1875 was the first year Congress decided to make up arbitrary immigration laws. Between then and the 1920s, petty tyrants in congress decided prostitutes, convicts, ex-convicts, Chinese (couldn't have them taking railroad jobs), and people with diseases were all unfit to be Americans. At some point, the illiterate and 'feeble-minded' were deemed unfit to have a chance at pursuing the American dream. In recent decades, congress has come up with ridiculous point systems to try to quantify what would make a good immigrant versus a bad immigrant. So, according to America's founding principles, the federal government has no authority to regulate immigration, and every attempt to do so is in direct violation of the Constitution.
The majority of Germans thought it was ok to kill Jews. They were wrong. The majority of Americans embraced the idea of eugenics. They were wrong too. Being in the majority doesn't make you right, Sue. And fortunately, since we live in a Republic the majority doesn't simply 'rule'. What's ironic is that most Hispanic immigrants vote Republican, because they've got strong individual work ethics, family values, and conservative religious views, yet Republicans are leading the charge to deport illegals -- the very people who would vote Republican if they became citizens. What's hilarious is that you actually think that immigrants use welfare, WIC, foodstamps, etc. From studies from the Urban Institute: "immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than natives of working age to receive welfare," and "immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received." Once again, the majority is wrong, and so are you. And Sue, statistically, the young lady in this article is less likely than you to receive welfare or other subsidies, more likely than you to keep a steady job, less likely than you to have illegitimate children, and less likely than you to commit a violent crime. All things being equal, I'd rather give her your citizenship and send you packing.
"The problem is that the illegals do not feel that they should have to follow our laws." No, Sue, the problem is that our immigration system doesn't work, so these people are doing what most rational people do when confronted with a useless, failing system (just like a broken red light): they ignore it. Immigrants are CONTRIBUTORS (www.freetrade.org/node/741)to our economy. Illegals who want to become citizens should have a realistic way to do it. Instead of trying to drive 12 million people out of the country, which is just plain stupid, why not simply make them pay a steep fine, and put them on the road to legal citizenship? No one is advocating rewarding anyone for breaking the law; what's being advocated is fixing stupid laws, and doing away with this insane, mouth-frothing hatred toward fellow human beings (most of whom are decent Christians).
The overwhelming majority of immigrants to this country -- legal or otherwise -- want to come here to have a better life, and they want to do it legally. Dick Armey talked a little about illegal immigration on ReasonTV (http://reason.tv/video/show/183.html). "I don't like illegal immigration, but I'll tell you something: I don't run stop lights. But you put me out on the road at two o'clock in the morning on the way to the all-night drugstore to get medicine for my babies, and you give me a stop light that is stuck on red, and no traffic in sight, and I'm gonna go through that red light." People are trying to be legal, but our INS, like just about everything else in our government, sucks. And the rules for immigration have changed radically from what they were when Irish and Italian immigrants flooded our country, 'taking jobs'. Ayn Rand was a great proponent of freedom, capitalism and America, but she came here from Russia. Someone once picked at her, "Why should we care what a foreigner thinks?". Her response was something like, "I chose to be an American. What did you ever do, except for having been born?" To all of these un-American, un-patriotic, un-Christian folks who are so angry about people trying to become part of this country, I challenge you: Why do you deserve to be an American more than anyone else? Because you were lucky enough to have been born here? If anything, the only path to full citizenship should be what Robert Heinlein suggested: serving in the military, not getting lucky in the lottery pool of birth.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation