From: John B. on
On May 14, 5:50 pm, BAR <sc...(a)> wrote:
> In article <2001570a-ce37-465d-84df-3e01c930e6a5
>>, johnb...(a) says...
> > On May 13, 10:17 pm, Loudon Briggs <lar...(a)> wrote:
> > > "John B." <johnb...(a)> 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.

The phrase "enemies foreign and domestic" does not refer to visa over-
stayers or others who are not legally in the United States.

It IS Arizona's fault that they passed a law requiring federal
cooperation that the federal government can't provide.

From: Alan Baker on
In article <MPG.265798b2d7093387989f1e(a)>,
BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-2580B2.15225214052010(a)>,
> alangbaker(a) says...
> >
> > In article <lviru59gr8rienqn2venm9pigrbervdekr(a)>,
> > Howard Brazee <howard(a)> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:52:46 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> US constitution begs to differ.
> > > >
> > > >Not according to the Obama Administration.
> > >
> > > Just about all presidents believe them to be above the Constitution.
> > > Obama is no exception.
> >
> > In what way?
> There were these really smart dudes about 250 years ago who had a real
> good understanding of human nature. When they constituted the US they
> made sure to put in these things called checks and balances.

Once again with the deliberate obtuseness, Bert?

In what way does Obama believe himself to be above the United States

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Carbon on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:52:46 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
> news:4bec80c0$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 23:12:13 -0700, dene wrote:
>>> "kenpitts" <ken.ptts(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:0c522f75-0d64-48e8-
>>> bac9-92a7bb5e6399(a)
>>>> The rights of which you speak are for citizens. Not for illegals
>>>> charging across our border or terrorists in Gitmo.
>>> Bingo. My point exactly.
>> US constitution begs to differ.
> Not according to the Obama Administration.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but: how so?
From: Howard Brazee on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:26:25 -0400, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

>> 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.
>Lying to law enforcement is a crime. Therefore, if you are not a citizen
>and you say you are a citizen you have committed another crime.

There are occasions where a cop has reasonable evidence that a crime
has occurred. This law shouldn't be needed for the cop to pick up a
person with such evidence. And it is not an unreasonable
requirement for anybody who has been picked up for a crime to provide
identification information.

Speaking broken English or having an ethnic appearance is not in
itself reasonable evidence that one is not a citizen.

"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: Carbon on
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:31:10 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <clark-18AE4C.11152114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>, clark(a) says...
>> In article <MPG.26571432bedc66d3989f0d(a)>, BAR
>> <screw(a)> wrote:
>>> In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>, clark(a) says...
>>>> In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)>, BAR
>>>> <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>>> Any one can be charged with any thing. Courts do not have a
>>>>> finding of innocence, it is either guilty or not guilty.
>>>> They have a presumption of innocence, unless guilt can be proved.
>>>> Innocent is, therefore, the status quo.
>>> A presumption of innocence is not a finding of innocence.
>> Yes it is, until a finding of guilty is arrived at.
> The "wise" ramblings of a liberal mind.

Don't you ever get tired of playing the fool?