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 18:15 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク 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.
From: pandora on 29 Jul 2010 18:17 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:03:29 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:49:33 -0500, pandora wrote: > >> 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. > > > "The people" have no say in this administration, as has been > demonstrated time and time again. The Media controls the voice of the > people. If you don't see that, you should open your eyes. > You still don't understand that when you contradict yourself (by your very own words), you look like a complete idiot. Opening your eyes wouldn't help you I'm afraid. > Being a Liberal, you can't. You can only do what you're programmed to > do. > > Perhaps one of these days you'll start thinking for yourself. > > But I doubt it. You may be thinking for yourself but being an idiot (and a back pedaler), it doesn't do you much good.
From: Meat Plow on 29 Jul 2010 18:25 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:24 -0500, pandora wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:01:43 -0400, Hachiroku ハチロク 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?
From: Aratzio on 29 Jul 2010 18:39 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:50:09 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: >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. Not unless Limbaugh or Beck told you what to think. > >If you're here illegally, you've comitted a crime. If you've committed a >crime, you are subject to inquisition by Law Enforcement. No one has ever argued that was not a fact, dimwit. Now go ahead and argue your ignorant strawman. > >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? > Wow, you really don't know anything about immigration policy as proven my your abject ignorance of how immigration law is enforced. If after arresting someone their immigration status is determined to be *illegal* then they are either tried and convicted of the crime, serve the sentence and after the sentence is served are deported. If the crime is insufficient to warrant incarceration then they are turned over to ICE for processing, usually leading to deportation. How do you think Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County has deported so many illegal aliens. You know the guy that is Sheriff of the country right on the border. The one that has clearly stated that he has no problem deporting illegal aliens without the burden of SB1070. You know the one that would have required him to check the status of every person and taken his limited resources away from actual enforcement. So, dumbass, do you imagine in your ignorant world that the police have no ability to detain illegal immigrants? Here is your hint: The law gave the police the right to detain a citizen without a warrant or charges if the citizen could not provide evidence at that time they were legal residents. That is a violation of the 4th amendment. You do realize that deportations are up 10% this year due to tougher enforcement. Crime along the boarder is down again this year. Funny how that never makes it into wingnut world.
From: Aratzio on 29 Jul 2010 18:40
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:01:25 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.aratzio, Jeff The Drunk <jeff(a)the-bar.drinking> got double secret probation for writing: >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? Gutted would be "unenforcable". Unless in your world the inability to enforce is just like enforcement? |