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 20:03 In article <bsmru5d7da27in0jvapp9nkv4mm24iq462(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 @charter.net says... > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:34:30 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >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. > > Could you please elaborate? > > Do you honestly believe there is a material difference between a > finding and a signed court order pronouncing a person factually > innocent? And do you think a judge would sign such a pronouncement if > he was not convinced it was true? You have just made a distinction between the two, they are different.
From: Howard Brazee on 14 May 2010 20:13 On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:54:16 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> 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. > >You are projecting. Projecting your biases onto others. What don't see where I said anything about biases. What are my biases that I am projecting? -- "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 20:21 On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:10:39 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >> >> Just about all presidents believe them to be above the Constitution. >> >> Obama is no exception. >> > >> >In what way? >> >> Some examples: >> Waging undeclared war (lasting longer than legal wars). > >Whatever you may think of the undeclared wars, Obama was left holding >the bag on that one. Simply withdrawing one's troops after the thing has >been started isn't necessarily prudent. He has expanded one war. But my statement includes "Just about all presidents". >> Overstepping the 10th amendment is another way. > >In what way has Obama overstepped that? That's mainly the Congress here, but presidents have proposed laws to do things that aren't explicitly allowed for by the Constitution. >> Nixon was famous for declaring that the Constitution didn't apply to >> the president. > >Which is relevant to my question, how? He is part of the set of "Just about all presidents". >> Guantanamo > >Again, Obama was left holding the bag on that. So? -- "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: John B. on 14 May 2010 20:51 On May 14, 7:45 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > Actually it's been explained a few times already. Obviously you > haven't been paying attention. I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it. > > >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents > >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents? > > If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good > parents. A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal? You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics better parents?
From: bknight on 14 May 2010 22:05
On 14 May 2010 22:57:19 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:31:10 -0400, BAR wrote: >> In article <clark-18AE4C.11152114052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... >>> In article <MPG.26571432bedc66d3989f0d(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR >>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >>>> In article <clark-A9BFC7.07535414052010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>>> state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... >>>>> In article <MPG.26570128e6ab5426989f03(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR >>>>> <screw(a)you.com> 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? He isn't playing. BK |