Examples of the Hysterical pro-illegal immigration crowd

[sirs]

Just so that some folks won't think I'm specifically talking about them, when I refer to the hysterical anti-legal immigration enforcement crowd
-------------------------------------------

Arizona Immigration Law = "Nazi" Cops Gone Wild; Smearing Like It's 1995
May 03, 2010

Arizona's Immigration Law = "Nazi" Cops Gone Wild

"Tonight, Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they're here illegally."
CBS's Katie Couric at the top of the April 23 Evening News.

"On the broadcast tonight, battle lines over an emotional question. Can police stop you on the street if they think you?re here illegally?"
Brian Williams teasing the first story on the April 23 NBC Nightly News.

"A question: If a stranger walking down the street or riding the bus does not seem to be a U.S. citizen, is it alright for the police to stop and question him? Well, today the Governor of Arizona signed a law that requires police to do just that."
Diane Sawyer leading off ABC's World News, April 23.

"In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country's largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law 'mean-spirited' and compared it to Nazi repression."
CBS correspondent Bill Whitaker on the April 23 Evening News.

Reporter John Blackstone: "Kym Rivera brought her children to a demonstration today against Arizona's new immigration law. Her husband, born in El Salvador, was sworn in as a citizen last October....But she fears he'll become a suspect when police are searching for illegal immigrants under the new law."
Protester Kym Rivera: "He worries he'll be asked to leave this country because he was not born here. That he'll be separated from his children, from his wife of 15 years. Why should my husband worry?"
CBS Evening News, April 26.

"With this new law, will you ramp it up? Will you, will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?"
ABC's Bill Weir to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Good Morning America, April 25.

vs.

"Critics have focused on the term 'reasonable suspicion' to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase 'lawful contact,' which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. 'That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure."
The Washington Examiner's Byron York, April 26.


Ex-NYT Reporter Rues Arizona "Police State," Reminds of Nazi-Occupied Denmark

"I'm glad I've already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I'm not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state....Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It's an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona, and anyone passing through, walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: 'I Could Be Illegal.'"
The New York Times's Linda Greenhouse, formerly the paper's Supreme Court reporter, in an April 27 op-ed.


Report

[Universe Prince]

And the hysterical part would be...?

[sirs]

The perseverative rhetoric that enforcing existing immigration law, with wording explictly making both racial profiling and stopping people just because they may "look illegal", illegal, is akin to Nazism

THAT hysterical part. 

So, apparently all this time when the Fed enforces its law, they too are acting like WWII Germany.  Funny how I haven't heard that kind of rhetoric before, regarding the Fed, excluding of course the fringes of each ideolgy, castigating Bush and Obama as trying become some fascist dictator

[Amianthus]

And the hysterical part would be...?

Statements like this:

Arizona Immigration Law = "Nazi" Cops Gone Wild
...
"Tonight, Arizona's controversial new immigration law. Police will now be able to make anyone they choose prove they're here illegally."
CBS's Katie Couric at the top of the April 23 Evening News.
...
"A question: If a stranger walking down the street or riding the bus does not seem to be a U.S. citizen, is it alright for the police to stop and question him? Well, today the Governor of Arizona signed a law that requires police to do just that."
Diane Sawyer leading off ABC's World News, April 23.
...
"With this new law, will you ramp it up? Will you, will you grab people on street corners? I mean, what will you do with this new law?"
ABC's Bill Weir to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Good Morning America, April 25.
...
"I'm glad I've already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I'm not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state....Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It's an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona, and anyone passing through, walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: 'I Could Be Illegal.'"
The New York Times's Linda Greenhouse, formerly the paper's Supreme Court reporter, in an April 27 op-ed.

[Universe Prince]

I don't buy that any of that is hysterical. Wrong, or poorly argued, yes. Hysteria, no. I think you're overusing the word 'hysterical' the way some people over use the word 'racist'.

[sirs]

if you can't see the hysterics in trying to compare enforcing our current immigration law, following a legal traffic stop or lawful detention, with that of Nazi Germany, and the SS demanding to see your papers, just because, and failure to do so, sending you to prison, or worse, then not sure how anyone can have a substantive debate with you, on this topic Prince.     

[Universe Prince]

if you can't see the hysterics in trying to compare enforcing our current immigration law, following a legal traffic stop or lawful detention, with that of Nazi Germany, and the SS demanding to see your papers, just because, and failure to do so, sending you to prison, or worse, then not sure how anyone can have a substantive debate with you, on this topic Prince.

As I said before, I think you're overusing the word 'hysterical' the way some people over use the word 'racist'. When you apply the word not just when there is an uncontrollable, extreme emotional outburst but any time people make hyperbolic arguments with which you do not agree, then you change and ultimately water down the meaning of the word until it is almost useless.

And the notion that if I do not agree with your misapplication of the word 'hysterical' then you cannot have a substantive debate with me is nothing less than adult male bovine excrement. One might as well argue that substantive debate about the Tea Party rallies is impossible if one does not see the racism in them.

No, Sirs, poorly formed, hyperbolic arguments are not the equivalent of hysteria. Calling them hysteria is also a poorly formed and hyperbolic argument. And if you really think that position precludes substantive debate, I would argue it's not the position interfering with debate, but your objection to a rational argument.

[sirs]

Sorry Prince, it's just not going to fly.  Calling people, and law enforcment nazis & racists, merely for enforcing immigration law, is largely the definition of hysterical.  IF such rhetoric was being used for all these years, of the Fed intermittently enforcing their own law, then MAYBE you'd have a leg to stand on. 

The only AMBE here is you not recognizing crap, as crap

[Universe Prince]

Calling people, and law enforcment nazis & racists, merely for enforcing immigration law, is largely the definition of hysterical.

No it isn't. Not even close.

The only AMBE here is you not recognizing crap, as crap

Oh, I'm recognizing crap as crap alright.  It just happens to be, ahem, your crap.

[sirs]

Calling people, and law enforcment nazis & racists, merely for enforcing immigration law, is largely the definition of hysterical.

No it isn't. Not even close.

Yes, VERY.  And severely ignorant, to boot

The only AMBE here is you not recognizing crap, as crap

Oh, I'm recognizing crap as crap alright.  It just happens to be, ahem, your crap.

Ooooooo, I was counting the minutes before you were going to come back with that whopper.  What took you so long?

[Universe Prince]

Sirs, if you can find me a definition of hysteria that actually says what you claim it to be, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong. I would be extremely surprised if you could.
As for what took me so long to call your crap, crap, well, I'm a little tired tonight. I'm getting almost too tired to try to rationally argue with someone who doesn't even seem to know the meaning of the word hysteria.

[sirs]

Hysteria: Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic....irrational, from fear, emotion

Yea yea, you still don't "agree".  Calling law enforcement nazis & racists, is pretty damn irrational, largely facilitated by an uncalled for non-existent fear of that which is explicity made illegal in the law in question.  It's crap, and your choice of not agreeing is your AMBE to deal with

[Universe Prince]

Hysteria: Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic....irrational, from fear, emotion

Yea yea, you still don't "agree".

So you know the definition is not sufficient, but you're going to insist it is anyway. As I said before, poorly formed, hyperbolic arguments are not the equivalent of hysteria, and labeling them hysteria is also a poorly formed and hyperbolic argument. And no, Sirs, the practice of not misapplying a word is not crap. Using a word properly is reasonable, and necessary for substantive debate. Which clearly you're not interested in having on this issue. So we're done.

[sirs]

Quite the contrary.  I knew it was perfectly sufficient, but also knew, given your predisposition, you still wouldn't accept it. 

In fact, if you were to look at this particular tangent objectively, as much as you're trying to claim some overburdening inappropriate choice of words as going to far, I see you as minimizing such acts, to a point of making the acts/rhetoric by said ignorant nutcases, as enabling & facilitating their very ignorance

As I said, that's your AMBE to have to clean up

[Universe Prince]

You're as bad as the fellow who insists that because I don't see racism in almost everything whitey does I'm enabling racism. No, Sirs, your mangled use of English is not my problem. And not engaging in the kind of hyperbolic nonsense you're complaining about is not enabling anyone's ignorance. Just the opposite. Your whole argument on this point is dreck.