MMJ joins Sound Strike

[sunnyday]

I don't know if I'm blind or just really bad with computers, but I can't seem to find this thread anywhere   :-?

[jones]

Mods.

[capt. scotty]

Maybe they shouldnt have joined it if they dont want people discussing it then

[CC]

sorry, accidentally vaporized it while trying to merge some threads.
tricky business this mod business. forgive me.
feel free to continue the discussion.
(or bring on the conspiracy theories if you like)

[el_chode]

(or bring on the conspiracy theories if you like)

That thread looked a little brown, didn't it?

[Ruckus]

Just please send back the criminal trash wreaking havoc upon this sacred land.

[red]

Just please send back the criminal trash wreaking havoc upon this sacred land.

i think we can all agree that the above statement is indicative of the direction the "conversation" was going and there is little else left to say.

i hope everyone in this community can find a more appropriate and educated way to discuss important topics in the future.

[johnnYYac]

Just please send back the criminal trash wreaking havoc upon this sacred land.

Could be a quote from native americans when the europeans showed up.

[BH]

Are there any other countries in the world that let anybody cross their border that wants to?  I think the issue here is racial profiling correct?  I'm so confused as to what people are ACTUALLY arguing about.  

[johnnYYac]

I think it boils down to supply and demand.  As long as Mexico fails to provide opportunities for its people and there are employers in the US willing to hire illegals, this problem will exist.  People have risked their lives to live in the shadows and work for shit.  This should tell us something.  

Until we address the root cause of those issues, we're treating the symptoms and not the disease (I am not comparing illegal immigrants to a disease, btw).  I respect both sides of this issue to a point.  And I respect MMJ's efforts to, I think, express their belief that Arizona's law is misguided, as popular and understandable a response it is.

This is my third attempt to chime in here.  I deleted earlier posts.  I'm very politically active but don't want to alienate people here, where music is the focus.  As long as we can respect each other, including some occasionally emotional statements, we can all still embrace in the parking lots and the pit.

In case I forget, "Happy Fourth of July!" folks!

[el_chode]

Are there any other countries in the world that let anybody cross their border that wants to?  I think the issue here is racial profiling correct?  I'm so confused as to what people are ACTUALLY arguing about.  

My future mother in law was born in Poland. My future father in law was born in whatever the Czech Republic was called back then. They both have extremely heavy accents, and look/dress foreign. They both also weighed in on the issue and said that all things considered, if they went to Arizona, by the law they should get some flak. But they won't, because they're so pale they're nearly transparent.

Regardless, to play both sides of the issue, I think this is Federalism gone backwards. It is the federal gov't job to secure the borders of the nation, and it should be uniform. They've been inactive, regardless of the administration. Their best idea is to build a fence in spots. Physical objects can't solve philosophical issues. You can't build a wall around the desert, you can't just start deporting everyone you come across. I don't have a real answer aside from removing incentives, and the most direct one I can think of is cracking down on employers who use undocumented help. But we all will have to deal with the cost of increased prices.

[johnnYYac]

Are there any other countries in the world that let anybody cross their border that wants to?  I think the issue here is racial profiling correct?  I'm so confused as to what people are ACTUALLY arguing about.  

My future mother in law was born in Poland. My future father in law was born in whatever the Czech Republic was called back then. They both have extremely heavy accents, and look/dress foreign. They both also weighed in on the issue and said that all things considered, if they went to Arizona, by the law they should get some flak. But they won't, because they're so pale they're nearly transparent.

Regardless, to play both sides of the issue, I think this is Federalism gone backwards. It is the federal gov't job to secure the borders of the nation, and it should be uniform. They've been inactive, regardless of the administration. Their best idea is to build a fence in spots. Physical objects can't solve philosophical issues. You can't build a wall around the desert, you can't just start deporting everyone you come across. I don't have a real answer aside from removing incentives, and the most direct one I can think of is cracking down on employers who use undocumented help. [highlight]But we all will have to deal with the cost of increased prices. [/highlight]

True, but that's where the health care debate ties in.  If employers were held to the fire about hiring illegals AND we removed the expectation of employer-provided health insurance, we might see prices kept low and wages rise.  When you buy an American-made car (if there is such a thing), more money is spent on health care for the employees involved in production than on the steel.  No wonder we struggle to compete with the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans in terms of price, quality, and R&D investment.  

Perhaps this should be moved to the Off Topic Ramblings section.  :)

[el_chode]

Are there any other countries in the world that let anybody cross their border that wants to?  I think the issue here is racial profiling correct?  I'm so confused as to what people are ACTUALLY arguing about.  

My future mother in law was born in Poland. My future father in law was born in whatever the Czech Republic was called back then. They both have extremely heavy accents, and look/dress foreign. They both also weighed in on the issue and said that all things considered, if they went to Arizona, by the law they should get some flak. But they won't, because they're so pale they're nearly transparent.

Regardless, to play both sides of the issue, I think this is Federalism gone backwards. It is the federal gov't job to secure the borders of the nation, and it should be uniform. They've been inactive, regardless of the administration. Their best idea is to build a fence in spots. Physical objects can't solve philosophical issues. You can't build a wall around the desert, you can't just start deporting everyone you come across. I don't have a real answer aside from removing incentives, and the most direct one I can think of is cracking down on employers who use undocumented help. [highlight]But we all will have to deal with the cost of increased prices. [/highlight]

True, but that's where the health care debate ties in.  If employers were held to the fire about hiring illegals AND we removed the expectation of employer-provided health insurance, we might see prices kept low and wages rise.  When you buy an American-made car (if there is such a thing), more money is spent on health care for the employees involved in production than on the steel.  No wonder we struggle to compete with the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans in terms of price, quality, and R&D investment.  

Perhaps this should be moved to the Off Topic Ramblings section.  :)

Perhaps haha. I'm not going to further this point really, because this is where people can riled up and then before you know it, someone's pregnant and then another person kicks them in the oven. Plus I don't really know that much about economics to make a sound argument.

What I will say is that I firmly believe that the two biggest running issues facing this country as a matter of policy (I don't consider health care true policy, and BP isn't a "running" issue), namely the wars and immigration, they're philosophical problems that are only being addressed in physical ways, because you can't observe a principle in the same way as a desert fence or the mugshot of the most recently captured #2 ranking Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan

Now excuse me while I go back to playing Red Dead Redemption and sneak back into Mexico to avoid a bounty.

[johnnYYac]

Are there any other countries in the world that let anybody cross their border that wants to?  I think the issue here is racial profiling correct?  I'm so confused as to what people are ACTUALLY arguing about.  

My future mother in law was born in Poland. My future father in law was born in whatever the Czech Republic was called back then. They both have extremely heavy accents, and look/dress foreign. They both also weighed in on the issue and said that all things considered, if they went to Arizona, by the law they should get some flak. But they won't, because they're so pale they're nearly transparent.

Regardless, to play both sides of the issue, I think this is Federalism gone backwards. It is the federal gov't job to secure the borders of the nation, and it should be uniform. They've been inactive, regardless of the administration. Their best idea is to build a fence in spots. Physical objects can't solve philosophical issues. You can't build a wall around the desert, you can't just start deporting everyone you come across. I don't have a real answer aside from removing incentives, and the most direct one I can think of is cracking down on employers who use undocumented help. [highlight]But we all will have to deal with the cost of increased prices. [/highlight]

True, but that's where the health care debate ties in.  If employers were held to the fire about hiring illegals AND we removed the expectation of employer-provided health insurance, we might see prices kept low and wages rise.  When you buy an American-made car (if there is such a thing), more money is spent on health care for the employees involved in production than on the steel.  No wonder we struggle to compete with the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans in terms of price, quality, and R&D investment.  

Perhaps this should be moved to the Off Topic Ramblings section.  :)

Perhaps haha. I'm not going to further this point really, because this is where people can riled up and then before you know it, someone's pregnant and then another person kicks them in the oven. Plus I don't really know that much about economics to make a sound argument.

What I will say is that I firmly believe that the two biggest running issues facing this country as a matter of policy (I don't consider health care true policy, and BP isn't a "running" issue), namely the wars and immigration, they're philosophical problems that are only being addressed in physical ways, because you can't observe a principle in the same way as a desert fence or the mugshot of the most recently captured #2 ranking Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan

Now excuse me while I go back to playing [highlight]Red Dead Redemption [/highlight]and sneak back into Mexico to avoid a bounty.

How is that?  I'm mostly FPS, and I've taken a break from gaming for some time.  My boys and I are having a Counterstrike Source reunion tomorrow night, but I've been intrigued by RDR.  You like?

[SaraBananaBear]

Okay, re-posting the original info then:
"Nobody in the music world seems to like Arizona's controversial new immigration law, but people are divided on how to approach it. Rage Against the Machine frontman Zack de la Rocha has helped organized the Sound Strike, a protest that involves various musicians agreeing to boycott the entire state of Arizona until the law is repealed. Kanye West, Sonic Youth, Conor Oberst, Massive Attack, and many others have already signed up for the boycott; Oberst recently recorded a new song specifically for the Sound Strike.

Today, the Sound Strike has announced a list of artists who have recently joined the boycott, including Nine Inch Nails, My Morning Jacket, Gogol Bordello, Steve Earle, Chris Rock, Billy Bragg, DJ Spooky, and Throwing Muses."

From: http://pitchfork.com/news/39293-nine-inch-nails-my-morning-jacket-join-arizona-boycott-as-backlash-mounts/

Hope the strike works!

Well I don't know too much about this and I'm not American, but about this becoming like a punishment to fans in the state, I think Conor Oberst said it pretty well when he said that:

"I've played a lot of shows in Arizona and I have fans there and I hope that they don't feel like we're attempting to punish them, 'cause that's not what it's about. If the choices are some kind of action, even if it's somewhat imperfect, or no action at all, we have to choose some kind of action."

Not that he has anything to do with how MMJ feels about it, but I still think it's pretty well put. But that's just my humble European opinion, no offense meant to anyone.

And I think this belongs in this part of the forum, since it's something that the band has done officially as a band and I would think that they would want people to discuss it, or else they would not have joined? Also, if you consider the other things that's been discussed under "The Band" section, I think this one is far more relevant.

As an European I think it's very interesting to hear Americans opinions on this and I do hope we're all grown-ups that can discuss it in a reasonable calm matter.

From what I've read about the law, it seems pretty racist.

"The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants"
From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6426125.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Which would mean that people who look like illegal immigrants will be the ones targeted (not sure how you can tell that though)? Which would mean racial profiling I suppose? A bit of a flashback to "Ihren Papieren bitte" as well.

[sunnyday]

"Fans of our music, our stories, our films and our words can be pulled over and harassed every day because they are brown or black, or for the way they speak, or for the music they listen to," Zack de la Rocha wrote in a press release announcing the strike.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006306-503544.html

I believe this quote really emphasizes what the law seems to be about.

[el_chode]

How is that?  I'm mostly FPS, and I've taken a break from gaming for some time.  My boys and I are having a Counterstrike Source reunion tomorrow night, but I've been intrigued by RDR.  You like?

It's decent. I think it's better than GTA for sure, a bit more creative and the plot is somewhat better, as is the "acting". However it's a little repetitive at this point and takes a LOT of time to complete.

[Tracy 3000]

The "We want our country back" crowd has elevated the fear and hate in this nation to an all time "low". It's not a coincidence that the tea party movment came about just as we got our first black president. A lot of White Amercia is scared to death of blacks, muslims and our brown brothers from Mexico. I blame Fox news and conservative talk radio for this hysteria. Bush did absolutely nothing about this issue and now all of a sudden people have to act quickly or else!

You want to "solve" illegal immigration? Then AMERICANS need to stop breaking the law by hiring illegals; less people will cross the border illegally if there's no work. But Americans are above breaking the law, right? No one is willing to enforce the laws that say hiring illegals aliens is, well, illegal! How about if you suspect the workers for a company are illegal then you go after that company.

I dunno, the arrogance (and denial) of America is mind boggling. And with the economy in the shitter, a war, BP oil catastrophe, etc... I think something really bad is on the horizon that might just wake us all up.

[Ruckus]

Just please send back the criminal trash wreaking havoc upon this sacred land.

i think we can all agree that the above statement is indicative of the direction the "conversation" was going and there is little else left to say.

i hope everyone in this community can find a more appropriate and educated way to discuss important topics in the future.

And perhaps you should have read the other thread more thoroughly.  I guess I have to put a winky guy huh?

The original thread had to do with the band's boycott.  I am of two minds about this.  Of course, the band has every right to play or not play.  The fundamental question then becomes, do they feel strongly enough about this issue that they don't mind alienating a significant percentage of their fan base, whether it be just Arizonans or many like minded, nationwide supporters of the law?  As another member was keen to point out (unfortunately I don't remember who), the band was either not as vigorous in their opposition of Prop 8 in Calfornia OR feared the financial repercussions of such a stance greatly enough not to take it.  While perhaps well intentioned, this boycott likely will alienate many fans of the band and while giving the band some modicum of self assurance as social activists.

Now on to the law.  It is a travesty.  On its face, it is so disgusting I can't bear to read the fine print anymore.  Yet, I also understand how it got to this point.  The ole Choder is on point with this one.  This is an extreme reactionary measure to the ineffectiveness, ambivalence, and toothlessness of the Federal Government in enforcing their immigration policy for years.  An extreme response by the money wielding, shrinking white majority was an inevitability.  Unfortunately, to both sides, this also plants a greater seed of racial mistrust and turns up the heat on an already simmering anger.

The law is amazing in its thoroughness.  The anticipated slew of litigation will likely be extremely costly.  The entrapment provisions protecting the police are intriguing.  The employing of aliens provisions are rather strict.  But the crux of the law is:

1) Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if [highlight]reasonable suspicion[/highlight] exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

As quoted from wiki, Reasonable Suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

The standard for reasonable suspicion has been defined in the seminal case Terry v. Ohio as:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop.  Some states (e.g., Colorado[1]) require that a person detained provide additional information, but as of April 2010, the validity of such additional obligations has not come before the Supreme Court.

What this law enables is a greater expansion of police powers likely resulting in a Gestapo like state only for those of a certain color.  This is the problem.  Law enforcement can't reach reasonable suspicion using race or ethnicity.  Unfortunately, that will likely be the means by which this law will be enforced, thus fostering greater racial profiling and greater incentives for police collusion to skew the pertinent facts.  Now I know that some may thing, "Oh, well then you really have be caught red handed to be subject to this law."

Here are a couple of first hand accounts of my experiences.  One cannot underestimate the public humiliation, rage, and helplessness one feels when put in this situation.  As some of you know, I am a first generation Asian American.  I was not born here.  My parents are of Indian and Japanese descent.  Because of my mixed racial background, to many I look like brown skinned person of Hispanic/Latino heritage.  It gives me a unique perspective given that I am not, yet the issues I have faced because of that presumption made by others.

In 2001, I graduated college and was driving to Frederick, MD from Chicago with all my personal belongings in my Toyota Corolla with Illinois plates.  I was moving to take a job in Maryland.  I was on an Ohio Interstate doing 70 in the left lane where the speed limit was 65.  I saw three police cars in the median so I remained cognizant of my speed.  Immediately after I passed, a state police car pulled out and began tailgating me.  I assumed that the officer wanted to pass so I turned on my blinker and switched to the middle lane.  The officer immediately got behind me and threw on her lights.  I pulled over.  She asked me if I knew why I got pulled over.  I said I didn't.  She told me that I didn't pass the tractor trailer by a minimum of 500 feet as required by Ohio law.  She then told be that this was high drug trafficking stretch of highway connecting New York and Chicago asked whether I had anything to hide.  I said I didn't.  She told me to get out of the car on the side of the highway.  I was patted down.  She made me empty my pockets.  She then threatened a canine unit on my vehicle and threw me in the backseat of her squad car.  She interrogate me for 15 minutes in her car before she realized what a green, racist asshole she was and that I was intellectually running circles around her in her bush league interview.  She finally let me go with a warning to "pass trucks on a highway by at least 500 feet because of their limited breaking distance."  If I knew then what I know now about my rights, that officer would no longer have her badge.  Instead, I drove away in rage and humiliation.

On my way to Orlando from Chicago, I was driving through Kentucky.  I was gunned for speeding.  I got a ticket.  I only looked at it when I got home.  The ticket actually had check boxes for the race of the offender.  To avoid skewing their racial profiling numbers any worse than they already were, the officer, without asking what my racial composition was, checked me as Caucasian, the one race I cannot possibly be inferred as being at a glance.  Just another subtle way in which the system keeps churning on.  I filed a complaint to no avail.

Yesterday, I was having lunch with a Mexican American attorney friend of mine.  She is from Arizona but practices in Maryland.  She told me that her parents were pulled over in Arizona a month ago.  The cops said they pulled them over for a busted taillight.  Her father, the Mexican American (white hispanic), got a ticket for not having his seat belt on.  When they got home, they noticed that all of their tail lights were working.

These are just examples of what can be for law abiding American citizens that were and are legal immigrants solely based on race with law enforcement using their tried and true pretextual methods.  I don't pretend to know what the answer is but we as a country must tread carefully on this issue because the long term repercussions are unclear.  Race riots?  Flight to other states.  When Arizona employers fire their employees en masse or they quit, do you think they will run back across the border or go to another state?  An then what will those states do?...............

[el_chode]

Ruckus, doesn't it also create a COA for citizens to bring against the local/state gov't for "failing to enforce the laws in a reasonable way"? That seems to me to create a potential drain on the local judicial economy.

Plus, i thought the standing law was you only had to show a drivers license in connection with a crime associated with driving or a motor vehicle (I don't have a cite).  So to me it seems to be a giant pretext to say that the law is an attempt to manage immigration if it can only be enforced through traffic stops. Logically, the alternative is to have everyone prove their citizenship on demand. Now isn't there a P&I clause issue with that? If I'm a citizen of NJ, then I'm a citizen of the US, and I shouldn't have to prove that to you if you just think I'm intoxicated walking down the street.