Old Shoe Woman/Flickr
- Skip to content
- Contact
- Sponsorships
- Donate
- Write for us
- 3:30am — May 22, 2012
independent nonprofit online news
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board wants all its students to be taught that Arizona’s new immigration law is un-American.... Read more»
219266543333
35 comments on this story
Can you believe these people are in charge of education. It is one thing to disagree with the law but to educate young people that they can pick and choose which laws the want to obey, simply because they do not agree. Remember even if AZ did not pass this law it is still a federal law. I guess LA thinks they should teach their students not to obey the law if they think it could be unfair. Way to be responsible adults in charge of young peoples education.
Will the LA School District also discuss the fact that illegals cost the American taxpayer millions and millions of dollars in aid to cover their activities. I was in a convienience earlier today and the lady in front of me couldn’t speak a lick of English but whipped out a Quest card to pay for her items. How about illegals coming into OUR country, killing themselves, getting injured in law enforcement pursuits? Who pays for all the “incidentals”? You as educators cannot paint over the stains, they will never go away.
Yes, I can believe THESE people are in charge of education. I guess by your logic all laws are perfect and should never be updated or contested. If that were the case, slavery would still be okay, we would still be segregated as a nation (like we aren’t anyway) and nobody would be allowed to drink alcohol. I applaud the Los Angeles board of education and it is action like this that makes me thankful I am from California and only had to spend a handful of years in the backwards/racist state that IS Arizona.
@yocobel
So because she didn’t speak English she was illegal? My great-grandma lived here all of her life and did not speak a word of english but she was a legal citizen.
@A.Hernandez10 It not about challenging the law it is about obeying the law until it is changed. This is also not about slavery it is about protecting our nation. Should we not look for terrorist either because we might offend them. Mind you you it already a federal and has been for many years.
@A.Hernandez10 And apparently she was catered to because she did not want to assimilate into our nation.
@mpier
How do you think the law gets changed? Through opposition. This law has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with protecting our nation. It is a bill that promotes the racial profiling of an entire group of people, despite what Jan Brewer has added to it.
What you say about terrorists makes no sense. Tell me what a terrorist looks like. Tell me what an illegal immigrant looks like.
@mpier
Well if you look carefully, you will see that OUR nation has no true national language, just a dominant one in English. So technically what you’re saying is wrong.
@A.Hernandez10 First of all if the laws were enforced the border would be secure and it would make the nation safer because we would know who is here. Second of all you prove my point by asking me to tell you what they look like. A racist goes off looks not data. The law is about gathering data to make the correct determination not going off looks like you do. It is more than just looking at somebody and wondering if they are illegally here. It is first about having a lawful right to stop and identify someone, like a traffic stop. From there the nervousness their language and whether or not they can identify themselves. But I know that is hard for you to see because you appear to be about hate.
@A.Hernandez10 I will have to research that because it is my understanding that English was declared the language of the USA. All I am saying is if you are a citizen of the USA then you should speak English.
@mpier
First off, if securing the borders was as simple as enforcing a law then we would not be having this discussion. However, this is anything but a simple situation. There is no way to truly secure the borders unless you are ready to shut down every coast from Washington/Maine down to California/Florida and everywhere in between.
Second, yes you are correct, this law is about gathering data, IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAY. This law gives police officers the authority to pull ANYONE over at ANYTIME for ANYTHING. You are also correct, a RACIST goes off of looks and the last time I checked, there are PLENTY of racist police officers in Arizona that will only exploit this law. I am 27 and a LEGAL U.S. citizen, but I still get nervous whenever I deal with a police officer because of past experiences with law enforcement.
Third, you don’t know the first thing about who I am or where I am from. So I ask that you keep it respectful.
@A.Hernandez10 First of all I am not trying to be disrespectful but look at some of your responses. Basically you are saying police officer cannot enforce any law correctly. You also say it is unconstitutional to have a person who is being question by law enforcement to have to identify themselves. As for those officers that are not professional they are far and few between. For those ones it doesn’t matter what the law it is they will abuse their authority. Therefore it has nothing to do with this law particularly.
@mpier
If you look at my comments, I am not saying that ALL police officers do not enforce the law correctly. There are many police officers who I respect and admire for their dedication to keeping the STREETS safe. To ask any police officer to also have to play border patrol is asking a bit too much. There are plenty of police officers that have come out against this law for that exact reason.
Second, I never said it is unconstitutional to have to identify yourself to a police officer. However, I AM saying that it IS unconstitutional to have to prove your CITIZENSHIP to a police officer. Since a drivers license does not qualify as a proper proof of citizenship there is no way, outside of always carrying around your birth certificate/ social security card (which nobody should EVER have to do), to determine who is or who is not a citizen without violating the constitution.
As for the officers who are not professional, I strongly disagree that they are far and few between, but that has more to do with personal experiences than anything else.
@A.Hernandez10@A.Hernandez10@A.Hernandez10@A.Hernandez10
I guess that is where we disagree, officers are in a business that is always constantly changing; they have to adapt and do the best they can. There are always going to be laws they disagree with, but that is the nature of the beast. If they don’t like find another career. Though there are some that have come out not liking the law there are those that believe it is another tool they can use. As for the drivers license it does not say that an officer will sit there and demand a passport or birth certificate. A drivers license is sufficient enough to show legal status because you are suppose to be legally here to get one. The law also states that the officer will not determine legal status but refer that part to ICE and Border Patrol. I think there is a lot of what ifs and not enough facts.
I completely agree with you that a police officers job requirement is constantly changing and that they do not always agree with the law, but what I don’t agree with is that if they don’t like it they should change careers. To stand by and allow injustice to occur is a bigger crime than anything we have discussed.
I disagree with your point about the drivers license because, as you have said, in order to attain one, you are SUPPOSED to be legal, that does not necessarily mean that you ARE legal, and that is why the drivers license is not a proper form a citizenship. Although you are right about having to report to ICE and Border Patrol, it is everything leading up to a moment like that is what is being called into question.
The reason there are so many “what ifs” is because this law is so open to interpretation, it makes it necessary to ask these type of questions.