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 28 Jul 2010 22:50 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?
From: Jeff The Drunk on 29 Jul 2010 07:01 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?
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 15:49 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:47:15 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:03:11 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > > >> >> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:54:19 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>> >>>> > SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>> >>> Bullshit. Derailed by Vox Populus. Nothing to do with "constitutional >>> grounds". >>> >>> > You'd have a point if most Arizonans were against SB1070, but in >>> > reality about 60% of the people here are in favor of it, according >>> > to this July 25 poll: >>> > >>> > www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/25/20100725immigration-poll- demographic.html >>> >>> Then they are just ignoring the voice of the people. >> >> But you said the court overturned the law because it HAD heeded the >> voice of the people -- "derailed by vox populus". You need to keep >> better track of your lies, Mr. convicted con artist. > > > It heeded the voice of the media, not the people. Back pedaler. Hehehehehehehe.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 16:00 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:14:47 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > >> SB1070 gutted on constitutional grounds. >>>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. > > Yippee! Figures...
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Jul 2010 16:01
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? |