# dont wear american flags on mexico's holiday



## Road Guy (May 6, 2010)

Truly our Country is and has been headed down the wrong path....

I hope our friends at the ACLU will pick up this fight.. &lt;sarcasm&gt;

also fyi a week or so after the french defeat on may 5th, the French Army came back and gave an actual ass kicking to mexico but I dont know what day they celebrate that holiday?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36981179?GT1=43001

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.

"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, "total nonsense."

"I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, "fat chance."

"I'm not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I'm an American and I'm proud to be an American."

The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district released a statement saying it does not agree with how Live Oak High School administrators handled this incident.

The boys will not be suspended and they were told they can go back to school Thursday. They may even wear their red, white, and blue colors again, but this time, the day after Cinco de Mayo, there will be no controversy.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 6, 2010)

> "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."


BS. They knew what they were doing, and were likely causing other trouble outside of just how they dressed.



> They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
> "I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."


BS. They were either looking to pick a fight over something, or looking for something to get them in the news. Apparently the latter succeeded.

I'm seriously tired of the hyper-sensitive attitude of most Americans.


----------



## Dark Knight (May 6, 2010)

I disagree Wil. This is a free country and we have the right to wear whatever we want whenever we want. Period. Wearing an American flag is not incendiary and it is not a crime. People should understand that their rights end where other's start.

It is not that they were wearing the American colors in Mexico. They were/are in their country( USA , land of the free...last time I checked) The problem is that many people come to this country to improve but pretend to replicate the way of life they left behind. Not all the people in the world know when each and every country celebrates their independence day. If somebody wants to celebrate their independence day they are more than welcome, good for them, but I do not have to celebrate with them because if I do not give a hoot.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 6, 2010)

Dark Knight said:


> I disagree Wil. This is a free country and we have the right to wear whatever we want whenever we want. Period. Wearing an American flag is not incendiary and it is not a crime. People should understand that their rights end where other's start.


You must have misunderstood me...I don't think they should have been sent home for what they were wearing. But I also don't believe that is the only reason they were sent home.


----------



## Dark Knight (May 6, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> > "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."
> 
> 
> BS. They knew what they were doing, and were likely causing other trouble outside of just how they dressed.
> ...


Which part did I misunderstand?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 6, 2010)

The part where you assumed that I thought their major offense was wearing an American flag. I'm not going to take MSNBC's word for it that these guys were just wearing the next shirt in their rotation, or randomly displaying their patriotism, or performing sort of silent protest against immigration...any of which would have been OK in my book. I have a feeling, arguably unfounded, that they were actively mocking the latino students or otherwise trying to incite an incident. In that case, the school has the right to take actions to remove the threat.


----------



## Dark Knight (May 6, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I have a feeling, arguably unfounded, that they were actively mocking the latino students or otherwise trying to incite an incident. In that case, the school has the right to take actions to remove the threat.


If you say so I guess then it is.


----------



## MA_PE (May 6, 2010)

Dark Knight said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > > "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."
> ...


I'm think with Will here. Nowhere does it say whether or not these kids routinely wore their American bandanas and t-shirts and this was just another routine day, or if they specifically chose to wear them on Cinco de Mayo. Either way it should be a non-issue, but if it were the latter, then I believe these kids donned the flag not out of "patriotism" but instead as an "in-your-face" gesture to the Mexican contingent. Similarly the "offense" felt by the Mexican side is an emotional response to the "in-your-face" gesture.

IMHO, this is typical high school BS. Then the school administration tried to take the PC route in order to quell the chance of any confrontations between the two by showing they are "sensitive to Mexican-Americans". screw that the adminstration was wrong..

If the Mexican-Americans want to wear Mexican flags here on the 4th of July they can have at it. That's what this country stands for. However, doing while they stand in line for free "aid" and other social programs from the American government is pretty damn hypocritical

The media jumps on this crap because people get emotionally charged of these things and it "makes news" and get viewers.

How many times have I said it. People suck.

[off rant/]


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 6, 2010)

Even if they wore it to provoke the Mexicans, they shouldn't have been asked to remove them, for Pete's sake. It is the American Flag and last time I heard, this was still America.

It isn't like white kids wearing the Confederate flag shirt on MLK day.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (May 6, 2010)

Yet "Los Suns" were applauded for wearing Spanglish uniforms in response to Arizona's new law. Go figure.


----------



## bigray76 (May 6, 2010)

The last time I checked, we were all AMERICANS... not (insert nationality here)-Americans. It is one thing to be proud of your heritage, but as a citizen here you are an AMERICAN with no hyphen. If you don't like, please feel free to go back to the country of your origin, something tells me you like it here a lot more than you would there.

Just my two cents... I'll get off my soapbox now and go back to spamming in the 10k thread.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 6, 2010)

Again...even if they wore the American flags on purpose as an "in your face" statement to the Mexican students, I don't think they should have been sent home or forced to remove the flags. I really think that they were engaging in active taunting or other behavior to incite rage in the other students. Also, again...I don't have any proof of this other than my utter lack of respect for mainstream media reporting only the convenient facts.


----------



## roadwreck (May 6, 2010)

Last night the spin instructor at the gym wanted to do a Cinco de Mayo themed class. He does these things every once in a while and the results have been pretty funny. We had a beach party spin class (everyone showed up in Hawaiian shirts, leis, etc.. There was a new years class too. Anyway, yesterday was Cinco de Mayo themed, and I couldn't think of anything to wear for it. I figured a sombrero would be good, but couldn't find one easily, so I did the only thing I could think of, I dressed up as a soccer player. Problem was, I didn't have any Mexico jerseys, mine are all England jerseys. So I went to spin class wearing shin guards &amp; socks, soccer cleats, soccer shorts and a shirt that said "ENGLAND" across the front. I thought it was funny. Oh, I wore goal keeper gloves too, but apparently they are past their sell by date. They are probably 15 years old at this point. I can't remember the last time I used them, but the material seems to have past it's prime and the gloves nearly fell apart just when I put them on.


----------



## MA_PE (May 6, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Even if they wore it to provoke the Mexicans, they shouldn't have been asked to remove them, for Pete's sake. It is the American Flag and last time I heard, this was still America.
> It isn't like white kids wearing the Confederate flag shirt on MLK day.


agreed and FWIW tghwe white kids should be allowed to wear the confederate flag on MLK day. Even though it's morally wrong it shouldn't be illegal.



wilheldp_PE said:


> Again...even if they wore the American flags on purpose as an "in your face" statement to the Mexican students, I don't think they should have been sent home or forced to remove the flags. I really think that they were engaging in active taunting or other behavior to incite rage in the other students. Also, again...I don't have any proof of this other than my utter lack of respect for mainstream media reporting only the convenient facts.


I don't believe "taunting" or other incitement necessarily took place. People could be "offended" without it and school official are p%ssies and VERY QUICK to give in based on "sensitivity".


----------



## EM_PS (May 6, 2010)

I fly the american flag at my house pretty much from April to Oct. (just a wall bracket) - yesterday....hmmmm, yeah, it was still flying! I'm sure glad nobody asked me take it down - but we did have enchilada's last nite so there you go.


----------



## mizzoueng (May 6, 2010)

I was all rilled up until I saw it was a story from Cali. That state is F'ed in the head to a degree that is of some Nth power.

[soap box]

This is is America, if you come here illegally you deserve ANY punishment that the US gov't hands down to you. Don't start giving me that BS about how "we are all immigrants" because the colonists came here PRIOR to a national government being established OR boarders. So there are no "illegal" immigrants if there are no legal boarders.

As for the laws in Arizona. I see nothing wrong with what they have done. There is no racial profiling going on. Sure they are going to be checking more "spanish looking" people than whites, but thats because they BOARDER MEXICO. Would you be looking for illegal Icelandic people in Arizona? Plus, for some reason people seem to think it is wrong for the State to punish people for breaking the law.... Am I the only one that thinks it would be a good idea to get these lunatics in a single room and unleash a bunch of hungry wolverines or something? I tire of hearing on the news how the ACLU or the NAACP is going after XYZ company or XYZ State because they are implementing rules or laws that prohibit illegal activities, and them saying its "racism".

Too bad Obama is caving so quickly on this, there is a serious illegal immigrant issue in the country. He could have made an example of Arizona and supported them. Instead he just slammed them, probably without reading the law first. He may not have even read it yet. And he may just be doing this to get the "republicans are bad" thing. Which is a whole other soap box.........

[/soap box]


----------



## Road Guy (May 6, 2010)

Wearing a confederate flag on mlk day may be "wrong" but the confederate flag in itself is not morally wrong. People use it in an immoral way which is the only reason the connection exist. Slaves came to this country under ships with English, French, and us flags. I challenge you to find a CSA flagbearing ship that brought any to the states. Of course all they teach kids in school these days is that the war against northern agression was all about slavery.

And I don't doubt the kids were provoking other students but again the us flag represents all us citizens regardless of where they came from.


----------



## Dleg (May 6, 2010)

Actually, the Arizona law is promoting racism. There was a story in one of our local papers here int he islands the other day. I'll try to dig it up and post it. Basically, a couple of islander kids (teenager-college aged), who had moved to Arizona with their families several years ago, went to a Wal-mart to use some sort of money wiring service to send money back to their relatives here in the islands, and the clerk at the Wal-mart asked to see their immigration papers or other ID to prove that they were US citizens, because of the new law.

So on the face of it, perhaps you can claim that the Arizona law is not racist. But it is resulting in people lashing out at "brown people" now.

Here's the article:

http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.asp...99325&amp;cat=1

FWIW, I agree with Wilheld. I think we should respect the teachers and the administrators. Let them decide how to run their school. They probably know alot more about these boys and what they were intending to do. The press is probably manipulating what happened to the sake of a good story.


----------



## Master slacker (May 6, 2010)

If you're *illegal*, you're *illegal*. HELLO! McFLY!!! GTFO

If you don't support the Arizona law, go pound sand.

If you're an American, you're an American. Wear that flag on any God-given day you want.


----------



## Dleg (May 6, 2010)

^ So if I am an American citizen who happens to have brown skin, and find myself in Arizona being harassed by dumbshit racist clerks who think this law gives them an excuse to exercize their prejudices against people who aren't white, I should just leave?


----------



## MA_PE (May 6, 2010)

Road Guy said:


> Wearing a confederate flag on mlk day may be "wrong" but the confederate flag in itself is not morally wrong. People use it in an immoral way which is the only reason the connection exist. Slaves came to this country under ships with English, French, and us flags. I challenge you to find a CSA flagbearing ship that brought any to the states. Of course all they teach kids in school these days is that the war against northern agression was all about slavery.
> 
> And I don't doubt the kids were provoking other students but again the us flag represents all us citizens regardless of where they came from.


It is my understanding that the fundamental reason the confederate flag exists is because the south wanted to secede from the union because they did not want to abolish slavery. I guess that I'm one of those northerners that was was taught that. Please educate me.


----------



## MGX (May 7, 2010)

Cinco de Mayo has not a thing to do with Mexican independence. Independence day in Mexico is celebrated in September.

As for my two cents the patriotic kids were probably intentionally being dicks, but as far as I know being an asshole isn't a crime.


----------



## benbo (May 7, 2010)

I guess my Peruvian immigrant wife and her Peruvian immigrant sisters who support the Arizona law will be surprised to learn they are anti Hispanic bigots.

I am not a big supporter of that law, for a number of reasons. So at least I can be content that I'm not a racist.

I also enjoy how people just make up facts that aren't given and use that to form opinions. Suppose we just assume, for the sake of argument, that all these kids did was wear the shirts. Regardless of motivation. If you think that every kid at high school who ever did something intended to rile up another kid is getting this same treatment, you sure went to a different kind of high school than I did. We need to respect the set rules, which did NOT priohibit wearing this shirt. We need to enforce them equally. If it stirs somebody up, then both groups should be sent home. I for one do not find school adminisitrators to be infallible and without their own biases.


----------



## Master slacker (May 7, 2010)

Dleg said:


> ^ So if I am an American citizen who happens to have brown skin, and find myself in Arizona being harassed by dumbshit racist clerks who think this law gives them an excuse to exercize their prejudices against people who aren't white, I should just leave?


So if I am an American citizen who happens to have white skin, and find myself passed-over for a job because of stupid shit laws that unfairly give those of non-white descent a higher spot on the pole (regardless of qualifications), I shouldn't be upset?

To answer your question, though, I never said you should leave. If you're here illegally, you're here illegally and are therefore a criminal. If the punishment is deportation, so be it. They have no right to cry that they're not being treated fairly. Illegals know what they're doing. Also, racists are everywhere and have every color of skin. People get mistaken for the real criminal all the time and get dragged to jail. If anyone thinks they'll be harassed, maybe they should carry paperwork with them to prove their citizenship. I'm sure Arizona will publish what will suffice. Hell, I carry my DL, credit cards, business cards, insurance cards, ATM card, cash, phone, and keys with me all the time. Is another piece of paper or two really too much to ask? As an aside - white people are not immune from racial laws. Ever seen anyone of Mexican descent with similar skin tone as a "white" person? Boy, I have.

Finally, why are people all jumping on the ship defending those who are here illegally in the first place? For the past 10+ years, the presidency has promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but all have dropped the ball and taxpayers suffer the consequences. However, when Arizona, which has all types of problems with drugs, crime, financial hardship that all stem from this immigration boom, decides to take matters into their own hands and save itself, everyone gets in a tizzy. I really don't give a rat's ass if the illegal is Mexican, Canadian, Pakistani, or frickin' British. My tax dollars, which always seem to be taken from me faster and faster, are funding all types of programs for these illegals. "But they pay social security if they are using an anonymous SS# to get a job!" So? You think SS will benefit anyone in 10 years? BTW, one of my great-grandmothers came over on a boat from Germany (learned the English language), another was full blood Native American (learned the English language, too), and countless others in my family came from Britain... ALL LEGALLY!

While we're at it, let's kill the law that forces convicted child molesters to register their whereabouts, notify their neighbors, and have it on their records. They're being discriminated against because potential employers will see this information and won't want to hire them. Boo-f'ing-hoo.

:violin:

Cliff's Notes: Illegal is illegal is illegal. Doing something illegal makes you a criminal. Criminals should face the consequences. Sometimes good people get mistaken for criminals. If you're in Arizona, help yourself prevent a mistake onto you. Today's laws positively and negatively affect everyone. You can't make everyone happy. Discrimination is everywhere.

[/rant]


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (May 7, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> Road Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Wearing a confederate flag on mlk day may be "wrong" but the confederate flag in itself is not morally wrong. People use it in an immoral way which is the only reason the connection exist. Slaves came to this country under ships with English, French, and us flags. I challenge you to find a CSA flagbearing ship that brought any to the states. Of course all they teach kids in school these days is that the war against northern agression was all about slavery.
> ...


Ditto for me.

That's ok, the curriculum in the northwest is basically all Lewis and Clark, and some war we fought in seventeen seventy-something. (My MIL is a middle school teacher in WA)


----------



## jmbeck (May 7, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> It is my understanding that the fundamental reason the confederate flag exists is because the south wanted to secede from the union because they did not want to abolish slavery. I guess that I'm one of those northerners that was was taught that. Please educate me.


The north did not want to abolish slavery. The north didn't want new states to have the choice to be a "free state" or a "slave state". It this instance, the south fought for "state's rights" while the north wanted central rule. However, there were some instances were the North advocated individual state rights over federal rule, while the south believed centralized government was the right path.

Bottom line, you had two different economies that worked together, but had different interests. These different interests led to irreconcilable differences.

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't an effort to end slavery as much as it was a strategic war move. It stated that states that did not return to the Union by 1863 would be freed. The second order, issued in 1863, specifically named the 10 states that comprised of the confederacy. It did not free the slaves in the border states of TN, the counties that would comprise WV, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, or Delaware. Abolition did not come in these states until the 13th ammendment, 7 months after the end of the war.

The southern states and the northern states were at odds on a lot of issues, not just slavery.

That being said, I'm a United States American. That was a dark time in our history, and it tore a lot of families apart. It should be remembered, it should be respected, but it should be remembered as a difficult time. It shouldn't be made a mockery of with gaudy displays and as a platform for racism.

We don't have to sit here and discuss the merits of slavery. If someone can't see that it was wrong, then I can't help that person. And the war, no matter the intent, weakened our country and killed 620,000 of our young men in uniform, and who knows how many civilians. Luckily, we were united again and became the greatest country on earth. Had the South won, and we'd have attempted to function as separate countries, I doubt either would still be under it's own rule today.


----------



## MA_PE (May 7, 2010)

> The north did not want to abolish slavery. The north didn't want new states to have the choice to be a "free state" or a "slave state". It this instance, the south fought for "state's rights" while the north wanted central rule. However, there were some instances were the North advocated individual state rights over federal rule, while the south believed centralized government was the right path.
> Bottom line, you had two different economies that worked together, but had different interests. These different interests led to irreconcilable differences.


Beck: Thanks for flashback history lesson. Maybe the North didn't specifically include language to abolish slavery, but they knew it was wrong. You say "two different economies that worked together, but had different interests. These different interests led to irreconcilable differences." The southern economy was built on and depended on slave labor. I still believe that that's where the fundamental difference was. Political jargon was, is. and will always be, political jargon.

I still believe that the civil war was about slavery, you have not convinced me otherwise, and as such the Confederate flag (whether it's intended or not) will always have a racist stigma associated with it (no matter how cool it looks on the General Lee). I certainly appreciate that not everyone who flies/displays the Confederate flag is a racist but they should be cognizant that not everyone shares this POV.

Now I think I'll fire up the bandit and head down past the Massy-Dixie line and have me some 'shine.


----------



## Master slacker (May 7, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> ... and as such the Confederate flag (whether it's intended or not) will always have a racist stigma associated with it (no matter how cool it looks on the General Lee). I certainly appreciate that not everyone who flies/displays the Confederate flag is a racist but they should be cognizant that not everyone shares this POV.


It's a shame that ignorance and assumptions trump truth and self-inquiry every day. Similarly, the swastika (and likenesses) will forever be labeled only to the Nazis and not the Hindu or Native American cultures.


----------



## jmbeck (May 7, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> I still believe that the civil war was about slavery, you have not convinced me otherwise...


That's certainly your prerogative, history simply won't support your opinion.

There was a large faction in the north that tolerated slavery, but was for the war simply in an effort to preserve the union.

As I stated, slavery was and is absolutely morally wrong. But, to boil the civil war down to the "good people of the north trying to make the wicked south free the slaves" is historically innaccurate.

Study a little on the northern war democrats and the New York draft riots. The northern states may have abolished slavery, but racism was just as strong in the north as it was in the south.


----------



## Road Guy (May 7, 2010)

The south seceded for many of the same reasons the original colonies fought for their independence, taxation without representation and states rights, tariff's etc. Slavery was one of the issues but if you put your 1862 hat on, do you really think that half a million Yankees died fighting to free slaves? Do you think half a million "rebs" who didnt own slaves died fighting to keep them?


----------



## MA_PE (May 7, 2010)

> The northern states may have abolished slavery, but racism was just as strong in the north as it was in the south.


Based on my life expereince here in the north, I'd have to disagree with that. I'm not saying that there were/aren't racists in the north but comparing the two populations there is a heck of a lot more tolerence in the north. History has pretty much demonstrated that.



> do you really think that half a million Yankees died fighting to free slaves? Do you think half a million "rebs" who didnt own slaves died fighting to keep them?


Statements like that can be made about any war throughout history. Money is always the driving force. The wealthiest southerners used slave labor. They were the ones pulling the strings and pushing for war to preserve their wealthy lifestyle.

The Yanks were very sympathetic to human rights and did not want a hostile entity on the border.


----------



## JavaJim (May 7, 2010)

The civil war may be over but the debate about how and why it started will go on for hundreds of years.


----------



## IlPadrino (May 7, 2010)

Road Guy said:


> The south seceded for many of the same reasons the original colonies fought for their independence, taxation without representation and states rights, tariff's etc. Slavery was one of the issues but if you put your 1862 hat on, do you really think that half a million Yankees died fighting to free slaves? Do you think half a million "rebs" who didnt own slaves died fighting to keep them?


All this talk of slavery reminded me of the latest PC "crap" that's being taught in school. My six-grader was told that heretowithforth, slaves that were coming to the U.S. on slave ships are to be called "African-American indentured servants". Unfortunately, he didn't have the courage to ask his teacher how someone who hasn't even hit the eastern short is entitled to the "american" label.

Not to hijack the thread, but I really dislike the term African-American. I'm a White American but probably have ancestors that come from Africa (if we go far enough back, maybe we all do). Can I start filling in the "African-American" block?


----------



## MA_PE (May 7, 2010)

WHAM and proud.

White Heterosexual American Male


----------



## benbo (May 7, 2010)

MA_PE said:


> WHAM and proud.
> White Heterosexual American Male


WHAM - George Michael.

Two out of four.


----------



## EM_PS (May 7, 2010)

^Pwn3d! :lmao:


----------



## MGX (May 7, 2010)

John Kerry's wife is the only African-American I can think of.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (May 7, 2010)

benbo said:


> MA_PE said:
> 
> 
> > WHAM and proud.
> ...


----------



## Dleg (May 7, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> While we're at it, let's kill the law that forces convicted child molesters to register their whereabouts, notify their neighbors, and have it on their records. They're being discriminated against because potential employers will see this information and won't want to hire them. Boo-f'ing-hoo.
> :violin:


Excellent analogy! Incorrectly applied, though. But still useful:

Child molestation was and still is illegal, and convicted child molesters were and still are required to register and carry ID. The Arizona law, if applied to the child molester analogy, gives the police the right to question anyone, at any time, to ascertain whether or not they are a registered child molester. Sounds OK, right? I mean, child molesters have committed an illegal act to begin with, right?

So let's say you're a good parent who has never touched your child's private parts for any reason other than to bathe them. You're certainly no child molester. You could be out at the mall, with your kids, and a policeman could decide that he doesn't like the way you look at your feet when he looks your way (hey, how could he know you're an engineer?), so he comes over to you, in front of your family and perhaps some friends you have met up with, and says "May I see your child molester registration card?"

You say "I don't have a child molester registration card. I'm not a child molester!" Your friends look at each other. Passing mall-goers gather, wondering if they will get to witness the arrest of a notorious child molester. At this point, the policeman is authrorized, by law, to use professional judgment, perhaps based on some training, to decide whether to haul you in to the police station for further investigation, or let you go.

That would be pretty embarassing, wouldn't it? Infuriating? Degrading???

Not to mention seeming a little unconstitutional, what with all that guilty-until-proven-innocent stuff. I thought we were all about protecting the Constitution around here?

That's why people are upset about the Arizona law.

Good analogy!


----------



## Master slacker (May 7, 2010)

Dleg said:


> ... so he comes over to you, in front of your family and perhaps some friends you have met up with, and says "May I see your child molester registration card?"
> You say "I don't have a child molester registration card. I'm not a child molester!"


Hence my assumption...



Master slacker said:


> If anyone thinks they'll be harassed, maybe they should carry paperwork with them to prove their citizenship. *I'm sure Arizona will publish what will suffice.* Hell, I carry my DL, credit cards, business cards, insurance cards, ATM card, cash, phone, and keys with me all the time. Is another piece of paper or two really too much to ask?


----------



## ElCid03 (May 7, 2010)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Even if they wore it to provoke the Mexicans, they shouldn't have been asked to remove them, for Pete's sake. It is the American Flag and last time I heard, this was still America.
> It isn't like white kids wearing the Confederate flag shirt on MLK day.


Actually here in the second capital of the Confederate States of America we celebrated Lee, Jackson, and King on the same day in January until I was in high school. Mind you this was after Doug Wilder had served as governor.


----------



## ElCid03 (May 7, 2010)

jmbeck said:


> MA_PE said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that the fundamental reason the confederate flag exists is because the south wanted to secede from the union because they did not want to abolish slavery. I guess that I'm one of those northerners that was was taught that. Please educate me.
> ...


Someone did not watch the Ken Burn's film very closely.

Lincoln was facing a difficult reelection campaign that had started up in 1863 for the Election of 1864. His opponet was George McClellan, the Army of the Potomac Commander he had fired twice. Lincoln did not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election unless General Meade could deliver him a Union victory in the eastern theater. Lincoln also needed the aboltionist vote but if he tackled emancipation without victory then he would risk alienating the significant northern population that was indifferent towards abolition. Two key things happened with a few days of July 1863: first Meade defeated Lee at Gettysburg (Actually Lee defeated himself but that is for another day...); second Grant took Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi River with it. Lincoln was able to take on the political risk of abolition once he had decisive victories. This is how a war that was first fought to preserve the union then became one about the question of slavery.


----------



## benbo (May 7, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> Dleg said:
> 
> 
> > ... so he comes over to you, in front of your family and perhaps some friends you have met up with, and says "May I see your child molester registration card?"
> ...


You see, this is why I would agree with Dleg to some extent. Slacker, none of those documents you listed would prove your legal right to stay here. People in California can get a driver's license while on a temporary visa, then just overstay their visa and have a perfectly good DL. I would need to carry my Passport with me, which I don't really want to do. Although I'll be honest and say being lily white I wouldn't really worry about it. I've come up through the border monitoring spot here by Camp Pendleton (about 40 miles north of the border) and the only time they haven't just waved me through was when I was with my Hispanic wife,and once when I was with a Filipino buddy.

Howver, I do believe the law is a reaction to a real problem, but was poorly thought out. I get really annoyed when peeople chalk this up to racism (although in a minority of cases it could be). I fully understand the frustration of the people who support this law. THe feds aren't doing their job controlling the border. I particularly understand the frustration of my wife who waited her turn and paid a lot of money to naturalize, and already carries her permanent resident card with her everywhere she goes. She gets no brownie points for obeying the law.

It's like this new law proposed by Lieberman and Scott Brown- to strip possible terror suspects of citizenship. I don't thinkyuou should be able to do something that radical without full due process. But I understand the sentiment behind it.


----------



## rudy (May 7, 2010)

Road Guy said:


> Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.


Sounds like there is more to the story... like they got in trouble because of the bandannas. Times have changed. When we were in school, no bandannas were allowed.

Agree with the sentiment... they should be able to wear the American flag on any day. as long as it's not disrespectful... like Will Ferrell wearing the American flag short shorts in SNL.


----------



## Master slacker (May 8, 2010)

benbo said:


> You see, this is why I would agree with Dleg to some extent. *Slacker, none of those documents you listed would prove your legal right to stay here.* People in California can get a driver's license while on a temporary visa, then just overstay their visa and have a perfectly good DL. I would need to carry my Passport with me, which I don't really want to do.


Hence my assumption...



Master slacker said:


> If anyone thinks they'll be harassed, maybe they should carry paperwork with them to prove their citizenship. *I'm sure Arizona will publish what will suffice.* Hell, I carry my DL, credit cards, business cards, insurance cards, ATM card, cash, phone, and keys with me all the time. *Is another piece of paper or two really too much to ask?*


When the fire has already engulfed the garage, will you try to put the garage fire out in hopes of saving what's left of it, or will you knock it down and hope to save the rest of the house?


----------



## benbo (May 8, 2010)

Master slacker said:


> benbo said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone thinks they'll be harassed, maybe they should carry paperwork with them to prove their citizenship. *I'm sure Arizona will publish what will suffice.* Hell, I carry my DL, credit cards, business cards, insurance cards, ATM card, cash, phone, and keys with me all the time. *Is another piece of paper or two really too much to ask?*
> ...


I didn't understand what you wrote because you put this-



> If anyone thinks they'll be harassed, maybe they should carry paperwork with them to prove their citizenship


The law would be fair if it said "Everybody must carry this card when out of their home. They will be stopped randomly and asked to produce it."

But that's not what the law says, and if it did you would hear a lot more complaints. I can tell by the amount of people who complain about airport security.

In my state at least, I'd bet that most illegals are Hispanic. So thinking that a Hispanic is more likely to be illegal is not racist , it's demographic. But it's not fair to put an extra burden on a Hispanic * citizen * just because they have brown skin. As it is, I wouldn't worry about this at all, merely because I'm white.

If you could figure out an acceptable way to make it apply to everyone I'd be all for it. Or, for example, if they said "If you come to a public hospital for medical benefits you must be legal or after providing emergency treatment we will deport you." that would seem fair to me. Of course, a lot of people would complain about that too, as being cruel.

To me it's a distraction and a sideshow. I can pretty much guarantee you almost nobody will ever get deported through this law. Arizona can't deport anybody. It's a law that makes one jurisdiction (Federal) prosecute and penalize a crime investigated by another jurisdiction, under a different statute (State). Let's see how long that ends up in court.

And you think the Obama justice department is going to jump to deport people Arizona cops arrest? It's so political it's not going to accomplish anything. The feds should be doing this, they should build a big double fence, make absolutely certain illegals get no public benefits, they should penalize employers, they should start deporting people they find here illegally through investigation.


----------



## MGX (May 8, 2010)

Has no one seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit! on immigration? A wall would be useless unless it was like the Berlin Wall with spikes, guard towers and razor wire; that would kick ass but noone would want to pay the taxes to build it. We're a nation of laws until we discuss immigration.


----------



## rudy (May 8, 2010)

VTEnviro said:


> Yet "Los Suns" were applauded for wearing Spanglish uniforms in response to Arizona's new law. Go figure.


$80 dollars for the shirt... yeah, and sleeves not included


----------



## benbo (May 8, 2010)

MGX said:


> Has no one seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit! on immigration? A wall would be useless unless it was like the Berlin Wall with spikes, guard towers and razor wire; that would kick ass but noone would want to pay the taxes to build it. We're a nation of laws until we discuss immigration.


And what's wrong with making the fence like that? It works pretty well in Gaza. Why is that somehow worse than running around asking people for their papers based on a belief they were illegal? At least then you would know the people trying to come over the wall were actually doing something wrong.

And assuming it didn't work, what is your plan to keep them out? Why not just close the border stations completely and round them up after they run in.

Glad you get your information from Penn and Teller.


----------



## rudy (May 8, 2010)

Penn and Teller? are they planning to make the wall disappear as part of their majic act?

The sad part is that the wall will be built by immigrants on the promise of a decent paying job.


----------



## MGX (May 8, 2010)

benbo said:


> MGX said:
> 
> 
> > Has no one seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit! on immigration? A wall would be useless unless it was like the Berlin Wall with spikes, guard towers and razor wire; that would kick ass but noone would want to pay the taxes to build it. We're a nation of laws until we discuss immigration.
> ...


Personally I have no silver bullet to prevent illegal immigration. Here in Oklahoma we do have a considerable amount of illegal (Mexican) immigrants but mostly they don't cause too much trouble. All the Guatemalans, Hondurans, Venezuelans and others from South America I know are legal immigrants or on student visas.

Only one or two thoughts emerge. One is to strictly enforce minimum wage laws to apply to legal and illegal persons, if such could be enforced then any motivation to hire illegal labor for cheaper wages would evaporate. Second could be some draconian methods we've applied in my state; that is anyone offering protection and housing to illegal immigrants faces severe financial penalties.

On the whole, the border jumpers in my state are looking for work so they can send money back home to their families. We do have some bad apples that get in and cause trouble. Whatever that percentage is we don't know since tracking how many illegals enter and how many cause trouble is tenuous at best.

There are many 'white' Mexicans, but rarely do they seem to jump the border. Call me racists but I've seen too many white looking people speaking only Spanish and driving very nice cars with Mexican plates to believe otherwise. If you think that's racist you're a racist for thinking 'brown' people are illegals.


----------



## rudy (May 8, 2010)

Dleg said:


> So on the face of it, perhaps you can claim that the Arizona law is not racist. But it is resulting in people lashing out at "brown people" now.


I feel bad for the sun lovers and sun bathers... wondering if tanning businesses will be closing down.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (May 10, 2010)

And the Repulicans cannot figure out why they seem to keep losing ground...shocking.



Master slacker said:


> If you're *illegal*, you're *illegal*. HELLO! McFLY!!! GTFO
> If you don't support the Arizona law, go pound sand.
> 
> If you're an American, you're an American. Wear that flag on any God-given day you want.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (May 10, 2010)

And Cinco de Mayo isn't a holiday in the US, celebrate to your hearts content, but it isn't a federally recognized day. Deal with it.

That being said, school districts can make kids take off or change any clothing that disrupts school, I doubt the ACLU gets involved.



MGX said:


> Cinco de Mayo has not a thing to do with Mexican independence. Independence day in Mexico is celebrated in September.
> As for my two cents the patriotic kids were probably intentionally being dicks, but as far as I know being an asshole isn't a crime.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 11, 2010)

Dleg said:


> Actually, the Arizona law is promoting racism. There was a story in one of our local papers here int he islands the other day. I'll try to dig it up and post it. Basically, a couple of islander kids (teenager-college aged), who had moved to Arizona with their families several years ago, went to a Wal-mart to use some sort of money wiring service to send money back to their relatives here in the islands, and the clerk at the Wal-mart asked to see their immigration papers or other ID to prove that they were US citizens, because of the new law.
> So on the face of it, perhaps you can claim that the Arizona law is not racist. But it is resulting in people lashing out at "brown people" now.
> 
> Here's the article:
> ...


Something is up with that article. Only the police can ask for ID, not clerks at Wallyworld. I suspect the Castros were telling a tale.


----------



## Dleg (May 11, 2010)

That's possible. But then again, it might just be that certain individuals who were already upset about illegal immigrants, or simply harboring racial prejudices, now feel empowered to look out for illegal immigrants on their own.

Kids growing up in Saipan have some good experience with that. Things aren't as bad here now as they were in the 90s, but back then, it was common for store clerks, policemen, government workers, and even just ordinary island residents to demand to see someone's immigration ID, oftentimes out of pure intent to intimidate. I personally saw this happen on one of our jogging paths, of all places, when some middle-aged island resident got angry about an obvious immigrant worker riding his bicycle on the path (he wasn't supposed to), and she stood in his way and castigated him, and then demanded he produce his ID card.

Personally, I had to work for over a year to get my inspection staff to stop doing the same thing to construction workers and field engineers over simple erosion control violations. It was extremely embarrassing for me, but these guys thought nothing of it, because the police did it all the time, and our local immigration law (we were, until last year, independent of the US immigration system) required aliens to carry their IDs with them. They would get mad because a silt fence wasn't in place, and the foreman wasn't repsecting them, so they would remind the foreman of his place by demanding his ID. Worked every time.

So yeah, it's possible these kids are lying, but it's also possible that some disgruntled clerk at a Walmart actually did this to them.


----------



## EM_PS (May 11, 2010)

^ so was _that_ (Saipan) considered racist profiling?


----------



## Road Guy (May 11, 2010)

Saw these kids on tv and it was obvious they did this to stoke the fires. But this is after all America......

&amp; just as I am sure people in Saipan wouldn't put faith in a story about their island in the Atlanta journal I wouldn't put much faith in something written half a globe away...

The states are granted the right to make laws under the constitution and my thought s if you don't live in Arizona it's not your problem. When there was a big construction boom in atlanta their were tons of "new pilgrims" taking up space in school, but we have congress to thank for that also . Ever since they left schools aren't so overcrowded, jails are not as full, those may not sound like big things but they are a huge drain on a local budget.

Espcially when they go to wal mart and wire all their money back to 'home' and such


----------



## Dleg (May 12, 2010)

EM_PS said:


> ^ so was _that_ (Saipan) considered racist profiling?


Yes. It was horrible, despicable treatment of other human beings, and is a big part of why the US Congress decided to exercise its authority under our Covenant to step in and take immigration control away. The only people that defended the CNMI's immigration system, at the time, were Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff.



Road Guy said:


> The states are granted the right to make laws under the constitution and my thought s if you don't live in Arizona it's not your problem. When there was a big construction boom in atlanta their were tons of "new pilgrims" taking up space in school, but we have congress to thank for that also . Ever since they left schools aren't so overcrowded, jails are not as full, those may not sound like big things but they are a huge drain on a local budget.
> Espcially when they go to wal mart and wire all their money back to 'home' and such


You can't hang your hat on one part of the constitution and ignore the other parts. Immigration control is the function of the federal government, not the states.


----------



## Road Guy (May 12, 2010)

i see it that arizona is merely enforcing what is already law, it is against the law to be in this country illegally. like others have said look what mexico's stance is towards illegal immigrants, pretty severe compared to ours.. I hope other states adopt similar measures.

&amp; when I refer to the constitution I mean the original draft, anything added after that is just crap IMO...


----------



## Dleg (May 12, 2010)

Well then you'd better turn in your guns, since that pesky bill of rights no longer applies to you.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 12, 2010)

Dleg said:


> Immigration control is the function of the federal government, not the states.


Yeah, but if the feds aren't doing their job, and it is to the detriment of the states, I think the state has the right to enforce the federal laws.

They do it for drugs all the time.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 12, 2010)

The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It puts limits on the power of the Federal Government.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 12, 2010)

Well, it did until the feds stretched the interstate commerce clause far beyond anything the founders probably intended.


----------



## Road Guy (May 12, 2010)

actually i was wrong it wasnt congress that said we had to educate kids here illegally it was the supreme court, it be nice if congress would do some work to overturn that one...


----------



## Dexman PE (May 12, 2010)

Back to the original topic:

A friend from highschool and I have been debating this over the last couple of days. She is mad they got sent home for wearing the US flag, but I've been trying to explain to her that the kids were really being sent home for picking a fight.

Think about it: If any of us were caught in high school picking a fight and the other person was getting mad/upset, we would be sent to the principals office. If we then continued to pick said fight or told the principal we would refuse to stop, we would be sent home. It was the principals job in this situation to stop the conflict in the best way he saw fit, whether it meant that these 5 kids change their clothes, get sent home, and/or if the other person(s) involved should be sent home/punished. The ONLY reason there is any controversy with this is the fact that the US flag was being used as the catalyst to start the fight. Yes, what they did was NOT illegal, nor is wearing the American flag on a shirt or bandana against any school rules, but they were involved with a fight and refusing to follow the principals decision to mitigate the fight, which IS against school rules. If I was the principal at this school, I would have sent them home too. I would have explained to both the kids and their parents (as well as put together a press release if needed) that they were in trouble for picking a fight and refusing to stand down. No more, no less. It's a school; a place to learn, not a political soapbox.

Additionally, this just illustrates the importance of knowing the context and intent behind a situation before jumping to a conclusion/opinion. I can call Chuck a redneck, but depending on the context it can mean many different things, whether I was pissed and was using it in a derogitory manner or just playing around and using it sarcastically. But if RG comes in mid-conversation and sees that I called Chuck a redneck and RG is not aware we were just playing around, I could get in trouble and banned for it (not that he would ban me for that, but you get the point).


----------



## mizzoueng (May 12, 2010)

I think the kids were using the flag as a catalyst. But at the same time, the students that were to be "offended" by them wearing the US flag should be spoken too. They are all US citizens (or should be) and live in America. If they are offended by the US flag, even if worn on a holiday that has been reduced to a excuse to go out and drink margaritas, they should be educated that the flag they are offended by is the symbol of the reason they are allowed in the country.

This country has been reduced to a steaming pile of ultra liberal super-emotional pansies.


----------



## Dexman PE (May 12, 2010)

Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.


----------



## FLBuff PE (May 12, 2010)

Dexman PE said:


> Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.


We're out of that phase?


----------



## Dexman PE (May 12, 2010)

FLBuff PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.
> ...


Not so much that we're out of that phase, but more like that phase has morphed into "I'll sue you because I'm offended"


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 12, 2010)

FLBuff PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.
> ...


No.


----------



## benbo (May 12, 2010)

> If any of us were caught in high school picking a fight and the other person was getting mad/upset, we would be sent to the principals office. If we then continued to pick said fight or told the principal we would refuse to stop, we would be sent home. It was the principals job in this situation to stop the conflict in the best way he saw fit, whether it meant that these 5 kids change their clothes, get sent home, and/or if the other person(s) involved should be sent home/punished. The ONLY reason there is any controversy with this is the fact that the US flag was being used as the catalyst to start the fight.


So who makes this determination that they were trying to start a fight? All they were doing was wearing a certain innocuous piece of clothing. It's not like they are saying rude things to the other kids (which, by the way, I'm sure probably happens every day at high school, probably on the football field). If I wear something, and a group of kids is so unruly they can't control their physical response to what I am wearing, it's those kids who have a problem. What if some kids came up to the principal and said they were offended the Mexicans were celebrating Cinco de Mayo, they took it as a challenge or an incitement. Should the Mexican kids be sent home then? I doubt the principal would have the cajones for this unless he wanted Al Sharpton camping out at his school. Should a student be sent home every time he or she wears something that offends another kid's "delicate sensibilities." It's time for all these kids to man up and learn to accept differing points of view. Punish them when they actually DO something worth punishing.

OR ALTERNATIVELY

If you don't feel you can control your student body, then set explicit rules ahead of time and enforce them universally. If you aren't allowed to wear clothing that might provoke somebody, institute a fair dress code. Don't make an ex post facto rule specifically against American flags merely because a certain group of students doesn't like them. I am certain kids wear things and actually DO things every day that offend other kids. But those kids bite their tongue, and concentrate on what they are supposed to. Oh, and if you can't control your student body as a principal without banishing kids for wearing the flag, time to give up your 6 figure salary and let somebody else have a try.


----------



## benbo (May 12, 2010)

^^^

And let me add. If these days wearing an inappropriate item of clothing constitutes provoking a fight we're really raising a bunch of mamby-pamby wimps. When I was at high school kid we started a fight by snapping somebody with a wet towel in the lockerroom, telling somebody you did their sister and she wasn't very good, asking somebody to meet you by the bike racks, or just hauling off and htting them.


----------



## Dleg (May 12, 2010)

wilheldp_PE said:


> The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It puts limits on the power of the Federal Government.


Huh?? Once again, why are people so eager to dismiss the Amendments to the Constitution?

from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html ://http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ch...n_history.html 



> The Bill of Rights
> The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see *the right of the people* and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of *provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." *Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.
> 
> A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that *the fundamental rights of individuals* had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that *a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."*
> ...


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 13, 2010)

Uh, Dleg, your link, and the bolded parts that you quoted, just prove my point. The anti-Federalists *wanted* the Constitution to grant rights to the people, but the rights of the people ended up being delegated to the state constitutions. If the bill of rights actually gave rights to individuals, then why is it not worded that "Citizens have the right to free speech, religion, press, etc." instead of "*Congress shall make no law respecting* an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."? Everything is worded as a limitation on government, not as specific rights granted to citizens.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 13, 2010)

This is why school uniforms are probably a good idea...


----------

