Wingnuts fail again.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} Here's a "Personal Comment" that won't get displayed!
Next: Douchebag "john" posts recall alerts, obtains attention he missed out on as child.
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 20:18 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:07:37 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:57:03 -0700, miguel wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the rights >>>>>>> of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US citizens or Legal >>>>>>> Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You have to produce it if >>>>>>> asked for it. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do exactly >>>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any LEA >>>>> asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking down the >>>>> street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for ID, are you >>>>> going to refuse? >>>> >>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* to >>>> carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not required >>>> to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in order to be >>>> allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is given by those >>>> born here. >>>> >>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the rights >>>> of legal US citizens and residents. >>> >>>Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your knowledge on >>>it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged upon? >> >> Among other things, it required the police to arrest and detain any >> immigrant, legal or illegal, until immigration status was determined. > > Ah ok. And you can cite that precisely? Also cite the guidelines for > determining who is an immigrant and who isn't. Indeed.
From: Anyone on 29 Jul 2010 20:50 Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on 29-Jul-10 13:22 ... > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000, Jeff The Drunk wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> >>> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >> So a temporary hold on some aspects of SB1070 constitutes >> being "gutted"? In what universe? > > There is an easy way around this: > > ANY person arrested may be required to provide proof of citizenship or > legal residence. The easy way around all this is to just arrest everyone > who runs afoul of any law ("You spit on the sidewalk. You're coming with > me.") Technically that is possible, if such a law were to exist, if someone were to be observed violating that law, if said observer were empowered to enforce and inclined to do so. (so much for a straman) There are more than a few ways to 'break' a society's infrastructure of rules and law. Is that what you really want? You'd prefer that things fail, rather than work? You prefer 'arrest first, ask questions later'? > It will put a hell of a load on the legal system, but this way cannot be > removed by a Liberal thinking judge anywhere. Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or simply chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of all legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer.
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 22:15 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:10:06 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:41:16 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, pandora > <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: > >>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:36:11 -0500, CharlesGrozny wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:H6l4o.37748$lS1.24264(a)newsfe12.iad... >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>> >>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the rights >>>>>> of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US citizens or Legal >>>>>> Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You have to produce it if >>>>>> asked for it. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about >>>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do exactly >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any LEA >>>> asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking down the >>>> street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for ID, are you >>>> going to refuse? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Ahh for the old days, when aliens had to register by Jan 31st of each >>> year. >>> >>> Charles Grozny >> >>And that would change exactly what? > > More government jobs. I thought these wingnuts wanted *smaller* government. Oh well.
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 22:20 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:49:59 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:21:46 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.aratzio, >> Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret probation for writing: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:19 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC), in the land of >>>> alt.impeach.bush, Meat Plow <mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> got double secret >>>> probation for writing: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:47:06 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:54 +0000, Meat Plow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:36:28 -0500, pandora wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <YAWN> Here we go with the straw man of "infringing on the >>>>>>>>>>> rights of US citizens." The law wasn't written about US >>>>>>>>>>> citizens or Legal Aliens. Why did you have a Green Card? You >>>>>>>>>>> have to produce it if asked for it. There is nothing illegal >>>>>>>>>>> or unconstitutional about that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not a citizen. And yes, the law, as written, would do >>>>>>>>>> exactly that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How so? If you have a Green Card, you have to produce it to any >>>>>>>>> LEA asking to see it. You know that. You could just be walking >>>>>>>>> down the street, and if a cop comes up to you and asks you for >>>>>>>>> ID, are you going to refuse? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not. But then, I'm not a US citizen and I'm *required* >>>>>>>> to carry my Green Card on me at all times. US citizens are not >>>>>>>> required to do that. As well, it was an agreement that I made in >>>>>>>> order to be allowed to live and work here. No such agreement is >>>>>>>> given by those born here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've been through this before and all I can conclude is that you >>>>>>>> just don't wish to admit that the Arizona law impinged on the >>>>>>>> rights of legal US citizens and residents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not being too well informed on that law but trusting your >>>>>>> knowledge on it, what rights of US citizens are being impinged >>>>>>> upon? >>>>>> >>>>>> The right to travel freely between states as well as to NOT be >>>>>> asked for papers proving citizenship or resident status. You, >>>>>> (presuming you are a US citizen) are not required to show *papers* >>>>>> ala Nazi Germany. >>>>> >>>>>So I understand that there are checkpoints set up along the roadways >>>>>ala Nazi Germany and everyone is forced to show their "papers" ? If >>>>>not please correct me. >>>> >>>> The law allowed the police to detain anyone that did not have papers. >>>> A clear violation of the 4th amendment. The need to carry >>>> identification is well settled law in the USA and the citizens are >>>> not required to carry identification. >>> >>>Sorry to snip but you are wrong. Be detained by the police in any state >>>and fail to produce identification....you know the rest. >> >> "lawfully detained" is what you meant to write. You have to provide >> legal cause before there can be detention. >> >> And no, it is not *any* state. Only 24 states have "stop and identiffy" >> laws. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes >> >> Keep digging. > > No digging needed. Get pulled for a simple traffic violation and fail to > produce ID then tell me what happened. ID, but not necessarily citizenship or resident status. Besides, if one is driving, one has already agreed to abide by the law that states one must have a valid driver's license in order to be driving.
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 22:21
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:50:42 -0700, Anyone wrote: > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on 29-Jul-10 13:22 ... >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000, Jeff The Drunk wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>> So a temporary hold on some aspects of SB1070 constitutes being >>> "gutted"? In what universe? >> >> There is an easy way around this: >> >> ANY person arrested may be required to provide proof of citizenship or >> legal residence. The easy way around all this is to just arrest >> everyone who runs afoul of any law ("You spit on the sidewalk. You're >> coming with me.") > > Technically that is possible, if such a law were to exist, if someone > were to be observed violating that law, if said observer were empowered > to enforce and inclined to do so. (so much for a straman) > > There are more than a few ways to 'break' a society's infrastructure of > rules and law. Is that what you really want? You'd prefer that things > fail, rather than work? You prefer 'arrest first, ask questions later'? > >> It will put a hell of a load on the legal system, but this way cannot >> be removed by a Liberal thinking judge anywhere. > > Indeed, that is the key issue isn't it -- laws did not exist, at least > in Arizona, so AZ political hacks wrote some. Unfortunately, they > either never bothered to consider a conflict with Federal law, or simply > chose to ignore the possibility, and ran afoul of the rights of all > legal residents. Hence the judge's decision to stay enforcement. > > No one can argue that we don't need better management of immigration, > but this dumbfucking Arizona-sTOOOpid approach is not the answer. Completely agreed. |