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: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 23:25 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:16:14 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:50:04 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:42:20 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:04:04 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>> writing: >>> >>>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:50:09 -0400, Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:36:44 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:13:21 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>>>>> writing: >>>>>> >>>>>>>What would she have to say about US Immigration laws, then? >>>>>> >>>>>> That they are constitutional since the Federal Government by the >>>>>> Constitution is tasked with Foreign Policy. Care to guess what >>>>>> Immigration policy is considered a part of? >>>>>> >>>>>> Really, do you know anything about the constitution? >>>>> >>>>> Yup. Plenty. I also know a bit about Immigration law, too. >>>>> >>>>> If you're here illegally, you've comitted a crime. If you've >>>>> committed a crime, you are subject to inquisition by Law Enforcement. >>>>> >>>>> Let's say you're a drug dealer, and are breaking a Federal law. You >>>>> get stopped by an AZ State patrolman. Is he going to say, "Aw, >>>>> shucks, you broke a Federal law. I'll have to let you go and hope the >>>>> Feds catch you." >>>>> >>>>> Really, are you that stupid? >>>> >>>> >>>>Apparently so: >>>> >>>>Three Chandler police officers were shot last night, one fatally, >>>>during an undercover drug bust, which, as described by police, sounds >>>>like a scene out of Miami Vice. >>> >>> So do you imagine that drug enforcement will be altered by enforcement >>> of SB1070? In what way will the drug gangs in Mexico be adversely >>> affected by SB1070? >> >> Might help to stop them from pouring over the border. > > So, you believe that all illegals are part of drug gangs? No. I believe all illegals are illegal.
From: Aratzio on 30 Jul 2010 11:04 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:49 -0500, in the land of alt.aratzio, pandora <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: >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. Yes, the concept of accepted privilege vs constutional rights is lost on these people.
From: Aratzio on 30 Jul 2010 11:06 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:27:23 -0700, in the land of alt.aratzio, miguel <miguel(a)insurgent.org> got double secret probation for writing: >On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:57:20 -0700, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:07:37 +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 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. >> >>Section 6. > >About guidelines: To my knowledge a legal immigrant isn't required to >carry his green card. If you are talking about identifying the legal >status of an immigrant, the authorities call the INS. That was one of the preemption arguments?
From: Aratzio on 30 Jul 2010 11:08 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:30:19 -0700, in the land of alt.aratzio, miguel <miguel(a)insurgent.org> got double secret probation for writing: >On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:13:36 +0000 (UTC), Meat Plow ><mhywatt(a)yahoo.com> 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. > >You are conflating two issues. Once a police officer has probable >cause to believe you committed a traffic offense, he is entitled to >require you to produce your ID. By driving the vehicle you have accepted id upon demand. > >The central failure of the Arizona law is that it equated having brown >skin with probable cause to arrest for an immigration offense. Warrantless detention...
From: Aratzio on 30 Jul 2010 11:20
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:15:24 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, pandora <pandora(a)peak.org> got double secret probation for writing: >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. Only when it affects poor or brown people. When it affects them it is "where is the government". What I find hilarious is if the law would have gone into effect the number of hours that actual law enforcement officers would have been required to perform just the amount f paperwork would have taken away from their duties. Less time to investigate crimes, lower closures, less convictions, higher crime rates. Then they would be screaming about crime rates going up and completely ignore their own culpability by blaming some new group other than themselves. The police should not be wasting their time on non-violent immigration law and should in fact be visible and on the street preventing/investigating violent and property crime. |