Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 16:34 In article <u00ru51bi8a06ahhd0r0fujagq6if278pt(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 @charter.net says... > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:42:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >In article <va9pu51uhst8rar2kqthuicb8hbi7mjoef(a)4ax.com>, > >howard(a)brazee.net says... > > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:59:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >> >> >If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to > >> >> >trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing," > >> >> >which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is > >> >> >deportation. > > >> >> What if the person is innocent? > > >> >Any non-citizen of the US who is here legally is required to have proof > >> >of their authority to be in the US on their person at all times. This is > >> >a federal law and a condition of their entry into the US. > > >> >Therefore, there can be no innocence. > > >> Citizens can be charged with illegal entry. > > >Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a finding of > >innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty. > > It's rare, but in fact there are times when, after considering all the > evidence against a defendant, the judge will pronounce him factually > innocent. Even Google knows about it. Close, but only a cigarillo. There are differences between pronouncements and findings.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:50 In article <2001570a-ce37-465d-84df-3e01c930e6a5 @i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On May 13, 10:17�pm, Loudon Briggs <lar...(a)bbz.net> wrote: > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> **************** > > > > >> If the person is charged with illegal entry only, they are NOT sent to > > >> trial... they are turned over to U.S. Customs and get a "hearing," > > >> which is totally different from a trial. The normal result is > > >> deportation. > > >>***************** > > > > >>I don't know whether I agree with you or not because I don't know what your position is. But since you live in Arizona, maybe you have some insight to what �local law enforcement authorities are going to do with the people they arrest for illegal entry. They can't prosecute them. They can't deport them. > > > > ******************* > > > > Apparently you didn't read my whole message... see above! > > > I did read it, but the problem is that Customs didn't have the > resources or the manpower to deal with the illegal aliens that are > caught by local law enforcement even before the AZ law was passed. If > a cop in Yuma arrests an illegal alien, what's he going to do with > him, drive him all the way to Phoenix? Call Customs and tell them to > come and get him? Nobody has the time or money to haul these people > around. You are describing the problem where the federal government is failing to carry out ints constitutional duty to protect the the citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. It is not Arizonia's problem or the citizens of Arizona's problem that the federal government is taxing them and mis-appropriating the money for other purposes that are not constitutionally mandated. I heard on the radio this evening that there are 6,600 ICE agents in the entire US and that there are 35,000 cops in NYC. The federal budget is $2 Trillion dollars a year and the NYC budget is $44 billion.
From: BAR on 14 May 2010 17:51 In article <alangbaker-8AB989.11361214052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have any of > > > > these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for them. > > > > > > Because a black market charges far more for drugs than they actually > > > cost to provide. > > > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > So does any market. It's called making a profit. > > Yup. But black markets charge far far more. It is the cost of doing business. Risk vs. reward.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 May 2010 17:52 On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:32:55 -0700 (PDT), kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >OK. Convict them of being here illegally and then deport them. I have no problem with doing an appropriate punishment - after due process. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 14 May 2010 18:13
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:55:09 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> So I would be sent to Colorado if I didn't have my proof of >> citizenship? > >You seem to miss the point. If you are a citizen you do not have to >carry proof on your person at all times. Your argument fails on its >face. If I am stopped, and they ask to see my legal papers, I can claim to be a citizen - and I would be even telling the truth. I suspect others will lie. Either case, we won't show the papers. >The federal law states that non-citizens are required to carry their >proof of ability to be in the US on their person at all times. The guy who sits next to me at work is Canadian. He tells me this isn't true. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |