NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

no i would not

why would you want to put our soldiers through that???

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by killing them. I do.


Of course not. All they are, are human beings that are looking for ways to support their families and put food on the table. You would do that for your family? Wouldnt you? I hope so.. Do you actually think they want to risk their life and everything they have to live in the United States where they are discriminated against? nope, all they want is to make money so they can help their families survive.

hell yes. except i would advocate shooting first and asking questions later

Better plan. Put the Army on the Border. Illegals cross tell them to halt. If they don't and continue, shoot over their heads. If they run over the border, shoot to disable then throw their butts back over the border. They get up and try to cross again, then kill them for being dumb enough to try it twice.

I would not support that. What I do support is a nation's right to detain illegal immigrants to determine their origin and character before deciding if they can stay as refugees or are to be deported as illegal immigrants.

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

You do know that the majority of the Highjackers were illegal immigrants I hope. As such by putting the Army on the border, they will be defending our country.

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

A pity that the American aborigines didn't use this tactic...

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

A pity that the American aborigines didn't use this tactic...


AMERICA'S FOUNDING FATHERS JUST GOT OWNED!!!!!!@@!41JooRU13

You do know that the majority of the Highjackers were illegal immigrants I hope. As such by putting the Army on the border, they will be defending our country.

And what will you do to defend the enormous space left without an Army inside your nation?

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

Uh, define attacking...

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

You do know that the majority of the Highjackers were illegal immigrants I hope. As such by putting the Army on the border, they will be defending our country.
agreed. but i think that some illegals should be allowed. i mean, a small minority of them. The Cubans should be allowed in since they have a reason to, and they work. Also, iit would be a blow to Fidel Castro's power if more people in Cuba think that they could just leave without being shot. But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office}Bill Clinton is just as evil as his communst friends.
anyway, we still need to stop immigration from Mexico and Canada. Canada is were most of the 9/11 hijackers got in from, because canada has the worst military and security in the world. and mexico brings in drug smugglers, who should be stopped. So, i support having troops on our borders

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

A pity that the American aborigines didn't use this tactic...

they did but... bows and arrows vs. muskets and steel armor... see? :D

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

A pity that the American aborigines didn't use this tactic...

they did but... bows and arrows vs. muskets and steel armor... see? :D

So, by this logic does anyone that makes it across the border without being shot dead gain the automatic right to citizenship?

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

I think a coordinated effort involving immigration officials and the miltary is a better option. Sharing inforamtion and resources for better coverage.

I support using a Border Control and INS to stop illegal immigrants. The army is for defending a country, if these illegal immigrants are attacking us, then, we can talk about troops, but they aren't; they're just stealing our jobs and our money.

You do know that the majority of the Highjackers were illegal immigrants I hope. As such by putting the Army on the border, they will be defending our country.
agreed. but i think that some illegals should be allowed. i mean, a small minority of them. The Cubans should be allowed in since they have a reason to, and they work. Also, iit would be a blow to Fidel Castro's power if more people in Cuba think that they could just leave without being shot. But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office}Bill Clinton is just as evil as his communst friends.
anyway, we still need to stop immigration from Mexico and Canada. Canada is were most of the 9/11 hijackers got in from, because canada has the worst military and security in the world. and mexico brings in drug smugglers, who should be stopped. So, i support having troops on our borders

Ok I'll agree with the cubans but your right. Canada and Mexico need to be sealed. My mom said they should've sealed off the borders after 9/11 but meh. The ACLU would sue. Hell they would sue if we do put troops on the border claiming it is their civil right to cross illegally.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

i think you need to LOOK at the border before you decide to station enough soldiers there to cover the whole thing. how many thousands of miles have to be covered? and what about the coastline? so youd need a soldier every...... 50 feet? 24/7?

there are probably way better uses for our highly trained military than as border guards

i think you need to LOOK at the border before you decide to station enough soldiers there to cover the whole thing. how many thousands of miles have to be covered? and what about the coastline? so youd need a soldier every...... 50 feet? 24/7?

there are probably way better uses for our highly trained military than as border guards

Don't need to many when you have the most modern of equipment on the border from Predators to choppers, to planes, to satellites to the good old fashioned soldier armed with infrared goggles with a laser site on the end to shoot them at 1,000 yards.

i think you need to LOOK at the border before you decide to station enough soldiers there to cover the whole thing. how many thousands of miles have to be covered? and what about the coastline? so youd need a soldier every...... 50 feet? 24/7?

there are probably way better uses for our highly trained military than as border guards

Ever heard of surveillance using aircraft and ships? Spotting illegals before they cross the borders to direct immigration officials to their location.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

i think you need to LOOK at the border before you decide to station enough soldiers there to cover the whole thing. how many thousands of miles have to be covered? and what about the coastline? so youd need a soldier every...... 50 feet? 24/7?

there are probably way better uses for our highly trained military than as border guards

Ever heard of surveillance using aircraft and ships? Spotting illegals before they cross the borders to direct immigration officials to their location.

But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office}

And the fact that Fidel Castro came to power during the term of a Republican President doesn't strike you as at all suspicious, no?

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

All of this was also in violation of the United States Consitution! This was 100% an impeachable offense.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

you've got to be kidding me. thats all you got? seriously, "he should be excuted for his crimes" do you have the copy of the executive order from clinton saying "take elian gonzalez by force back to cuba", i wanna see it you know since clinton himself did it.

and what about your republican buddies, sending weapons oversesa to known dangerous countries and funding south american militants *cough reagan cough*

Will the US military also be allowed to kill illegal emigrants?

But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office}

And the fact that Fidel Castro came to power during the term of a Republican President doesn't strike you as at all suspicious, no?

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about CLinton's criems, and you come out of the blue with a stupid argument that doesnt even have to do with anythging that we're discussing.

But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office}

And the fact that Fidel Castro came to power during the term of a Republican President doesn't strike you as at all suspicious, no?

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about CLinton's criems, and you come out of the blue with a stupid argument that doesnt even have to do with anything that we're discussing.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about CLinton's criems, and you come out of the blue with a stupid argument that doesnt even have to do with anything that we're discussing.

I'm just stating that Castro underwent a much great increase in power when there were Republicans in the White House than when there were Democrats there.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

All of this was also in violation of the United States Consitution! This was 100% an impeachable offense.
Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

you've got to be kidding me. thats all you got? seriously, "he should be excuted for his crimes" do you have the copy of the executive order from clinton saying "take elian gonzalez by force back to cuba", i wanna see it you know since clinton himself did it.

and what about your republican buddies, sending weapons oversesa to known dangerous countries and funding south american militants *cough reagan cough*

my god. just when i thought that people couldnt get any dumber. he approved of the order, and thats final, and if you need proof {since you are probably like twelve years old since you dont even know about the conflict} go on any news site.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

All of this was also in violation of the United States Consitution! This was 100% an impeachable offense.
Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.
Clinton approved of it, obviously. Janet Reno cant make such an order alone.

no i want to see the executive order directly from clinton orderign the removal of elian gonzalez since you are saying it was his fault

and please, go look up all the thigns that reagan did that basically amounted to treason

no i want to see the executive order directly from clinton orderign the removal of elian gonzalez since you are saying it was his fault

and please, go look up all the thigns that reagan did that basically amounted to treason

OK then. why dont you go ask your mommy to take you to clinton's mansion, and ask him to give it to you.

i assume you have it since you know it was clinton who directly had elian gonzalez removed, so you must have acopy of the executive order for you to know it

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!

If I'm following the flow of things here correctly, let us suppose that the original poster's suggested plan had been in place a few years ago, then...

if the boat Elian Gonzalez had been travelling in hadn't foundered, he would have been shot dead by the proposed snipers with nightsights for being an illegal immigrant when they tried to enter US waters...?

elian gonzales was returned to the only parent he had left. his father lived in cuba so the little boy was sent to cuba to be with his dad.

"But of course,CLinton and his stupid democrat friends have to spoil everything, and have to make Castro more powerful. {Reason # 203 Why democrats should not be put in office"


1) what did clinton even do
2) reagan supported saddam, gave weapons to iran, etc etc, you see where im going

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales {IDK if i spelt it wrong} to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. He sent armed soldiers into the home and pointed a gun to his head, so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.I was in Miami, and saw the home. The wals are broken, and the soldiers wrote really bad things on the wall. I bet after this smll child was sent back to Cuba, the democrats went and had a party with the CUban Communists. Bill CLinton should be executed for his crimes.

All of this was also in violation of the United States Consitution! This was 100% an impeachable offense.
Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.
Clinton approved of it, obviously. Janet Reno cant make such an order alone.
Why would she need an executive approval when deporting someone is well within her jurisdiction?

elian gonzales was returned to the only parent he had left. his father lived in cuba so the little boy was sent to cuba to be with his dad.

His so called "father" didnt give a s*** about his son, all he wanted wa sto be paid by the government. Ellian's uncle was taking great care of him. and he should have rights to his nephew, since he treats ellian more like a son, than ellian's father did.

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.
The, question is really would have the army shoot Latin Americans ie. Mexicans, Salvadorians, Guatemalans, etc, etc,. Because have a "soft" Canadian border.
It is only those "dirty mexicans" redneck trailer trash say should be shot.

America was founded on emigration, the person seeking the American dream. And the 'slack-jawed masses' that believe that now because their ass graces this nation the sign at the gates should suddenly read Closed are the ones who deserve to be shot.

I know several illegals, good hard working , family oriented people.
I know a 19 year old girl who escaped slave traders in Texas after she was sold by her American cousin who promised to take care of her if she could get across the border, to which she paid a 'coyote' $1500USD to get across. That entailed being led on a walk across the Arizona /Mexican border.
Let me drop your sorry racist xenophobic ass on the Mexican side and see if you can handle a walk through that desert with Border guards hunting you.
America needs MORE emigration, not less.

As far as that Cuban kid, He Was Cuban!!! His Closest Living Relative Was His FATHER. Who had Every Right to Demand His Son be Returned.
I hate Clinton, but at least he did not allow politics to intervere with Father's Right to have his son. That is called kidnapping, we jail people for that.

America was founded on emigration, the person seeking the American dream. And the slack jawed masses that believe that now because their ass graces this nation the sign at the gates should suddenly read closed are the ones who deserve to be shot.


Yay! A voice of sanity. It only took 40+ posts for one to arrive.


(I think you mistyped 'immigration' as 'emigration' throughout your post though.)

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

Yay! A voice of sanity. It only took 40+ posts for one to arrive.


(I think you mistyped 'immigration' as 'emigration' throughout your post though.)
Thanks, I used to write it immagration, but I thought that looked wrong.
Then someone told me it was "emigration".
Thats what I get for doubting myself.

Thats what I get for doubting myself.

immigration = people moving into a country.
emigration = people moving out of a country.

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!

No kidding, oh em imm got it thanks.
I just looked it up actually.

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!

Sorry, Chess Squares, my grammer school friend, but FormalDances is right. And ELlian's Uncle was and is a U.S. citizen.

BTW- I met Ellian's uncle in person when i went to see the house in Miami. He was very friendly and gave us {Me and my girlfriend} a tour. Too bad he didnt know much english.

Look at California economy after all the mexicans have ruined it. But why did every automaticly assume I meant from the Mexicans I was mostly mean to stop terrorist from entering.

i think you need to LOOK at the border before you decide to station enough soldiers there to cover the whole thing. how many thousands of miles have to be covered? and what about the coastline? so youd need a soldier every...... 50 feet? 24/7?

there are probably way better uses for our highly trained military than as border guards

Don't need to many when you have the most modern of equipment on the border from Predators to choppers, to planes, to satellites to the good old fashioned soldier armed with infrared goggles with a laser site on the end to shoot them at 1,000 yards.
Do you have any idea how much that would cost? I don't want open borders either, I advocate hiring a lot more Border Patrol agents and fencing on our southern borders, but using the military which will probably end up costing billions to maintain a sizeable force in the middle of the damn desert is....a bit excessive.

Since you seem to be so against immigration, I'm just curious, what state do you live in?

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!
No constitutional violation.
You say 4th amendment.
I say Probable Cause, they after all knew where the boy was.
The Excessive Force, well it is only Excessive until you consider that the Large majority of the Cuban populace in that area, notably the 3 or 4 dozen on the street outside the house. Said they would "Stop" the boy from being taken.
They werent told it was going to happen, well that was so :
They wouldnt attempt to flee,
There would be only dozens of people in opposition to the police instead of hundreds.
Police dont send notice they are raiding a place, thats not a raid.
It is an energetic get to together.

Look at California economy after all the mexicans have ruined it. But why did every automaticly assume I meant from the Mexicans I was mostly mean to stop terrorist from entering.

How do you tell the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist?

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.
The, question is really would have the army shoot Latin Americans ie. Mexicans, Salvadorians, Guatemalans, etc, etc,. Because have a "soft" Canadian border.
It is only those "dirty mexicans" redneck trailer trash say should be shot.

America was founded on emigration, the person seeking the American dream. And the 'slack-jawed masses' that believe that now because their ass graces this nation the sign at the gates should suddenly read Closed are the ones who deserve to be shot.

I know several illegals, good hard working , family oriented people.
I know a 19 year old girl who escaped slave traders in Texas after she was sold by her American cousin who promised to take care of her if she could get across the border, to which she paid a 'coyote' $1500USD to get across. That entailed being led on a walk across the Arizona /Mexican border.
Let me drop your sorry racist xenophobic ass on the Mexican side and see if you can handle a walk through that desert with Border guards hunting you.
America needs MORE emigration, not less.

As far as that Cuban kid, He Was Cuban!!! His Closest Living Relative Was His FATHER. Who had Every Right to Demand His Son be Returned.
I hate Clinton, but at least he did not allow politics to intervere with Father's Right to have his son. That is called kidnapping, we jail people for that.
You have emigrate and immigrate mixed up. Immigrate is go to a new country and emigrate is to leave your native country.

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!
No constitutional violation.
You say 4th amendment.
I say Probable Cause, they after all knew where the boy was.
The Excessive Force, well it is only Excessive until you consider that the Large majority of the Cuban populace in that area, notably the 3 or 4 dozen on the street outside the house. Said they would "Stop" the boy from being taken.
They werent told it was going to happen, well that was so :
They wouldnt attempt to flee,
There would be only dozens of people in opposition to the police instead of hundreds.
Police dont send notice they are raiding a place, thats not a raid.
It is an energetic get to together.

It still violated the law. No matter how you spin it she violated the law by doing what she did! As such and under the US Constitution, she should've been impeached.

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!


the bill of rights in and of itself isnt violated, you msut state which amendment(s) something violates, the bill of rights encompasses alot of stuff, so unless it violates everything *cough patriot act cough* state amendments


There was no need for a warrant, he was being deported back to his father who holds parental authority, and oh there was nearly 2 months between the INS decision of that and the final court case


reason for force was the amassed angry crows

Terrorists dont sneak over our borders they cross the soft border we have with Canada, they walk or drive across.
Talk to a customs officer.
Or we issue them visas.
Mexicans hold the Californian economy together.
They, they provide cheaper labor then any WASP would , and they actually work!!

It still violated the law. No matter how you spin it she violated the law by doing what she did! As such and under the US Constitution, she should've been impeached.
Where did it violate the law?
It did not violate the 4th amendment, excessive force is not a constitutional protection even if they used excessive force.
You are the only "spinning" anything.
You keep crying "the constitution" but cant back your statements up.
What law was broken?
OH and how long have you been with the ACLU?

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!


the bill of rights in and of itself isnt violated, you msut state which amendment(s) something violates, the bill of rights encompasses alot of stuff, so unless it violates everything *cough patriot act cough* state amendments


There was no need for a warrant, he was being deported back to his father who holds parental authority, and oh there was nearly 2 months between the INS decision of that and the final court case


reason for force was the amassed angry crows

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

The 9/11 terrorists weren't illegal immigrants either. They had educational visas so they could learn to fly planes.

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!


the bill of rights in and of itself isnt violated, you msut state which amendment(s) something violates, the bill of rights encompasses alot of stuff, so unless it violates everything *cough patriot act cough* state amendments


There was no need for a warrant, he was being deported back to his father who holds parental authority, and oh there was nearly 2 months between the INS decision of that and the final court case


reason for force was the amassed angry crows

yes there is reason for a warrant. i dont know if your social studies teacher taught you the bill of rights yet, but i'm still going to say this: it was a violation of ellain's uncle's rights as a U.S. citizen, to have soldiers break into his house and break his walls, write rascist graffiti on his walls, as well as point a gun at his nephew's head.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Think I read that somewhere... on some big statue of a woman with horns... near New York somewhere...

Would you support useing the army to stop people illegally entering the United states by shooting them with warning first. I do.

I agree.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Think I read that somewhere... on some big statue of a woman with horns... near New York somewhere...

the "golden door" is for immigrants who are going to go through the proper immigration process, and who wish to have U.S. citizenship, and to work and live in our fine country. the golden door is not for drug smugglers and terrorists.

It depends that American should accept illegal immigrant...

If the Immigrant is caught in the act going in without any documents of whatsoever, that immigrant must be interviewed why? and must be returned or accepted...In a manner in which the customs are arbitrary...

If the Immigrant is found to be hinding in the country, that immigrant should be checked in history and community thoughts of that particular migrant...Ie. what ppol think about him? if the im. is efficient, the im. stays ; if the im. is just buming around and causing nothing, that im is going home! Further, if the im. has good background, then let that im. reside in the country for that im. aids in the economy. If bad then the im. must be deported because such problem is not tolerated..

But personally, ill. im must be returned/deported because anyone could lie and make up fantasy to reality via words and actions..(dramatizations)We dont want any more extra ppol, who takes the resources and the priveldges of the legal ones...In fascism, we will make them work for the betterment of the nation and its original ppol...mwahahaha..So il. im. is going back once they make a wrong move..back to concentration camps or back to their homes, without anything...

S.S. Rohan

haha nerds!

Alright man, before you bash Clinton, it was Janet Reno that ordered the raid on the house, Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'm a girl not a man! Fine, then Reno deserved to be impeached. Either way it was an impeachable offense since it violated the Consititution!
i would more than love to hear you cite how and where it violated the constitution

She violated the BILL OF RIGHTS! The first ten amendments of the Constitution in case you didn't know.

Most notably the 4th Amendment! They never gave warning that they were coming. No Warrant from any court. Broke down the door without knocking. Used Exessive force to get one small child. Yea very contstitution like. NOT!!!!!!


the bill of rights in and of itself isnt violated, you msut state which amendment(s) something violates, the bill of rights encompasses alot of stuff, so unless it violates everything *cough patriot act cough* state amendments


There was no need for a warrant, he was being deported back to his father who holds parental authority, and oh there was nearly 2 months between the INS decision of that and the final court case


reason for force was the amassed angry crows

yes there is reason for a warrant. i dont know if your social studies teacher taught you the bill of rights yet, but i'm still going to say this: it was a violation of ellain's uncle's rights as a U.S. citizen, to have soldiers break into his house and break his walls, write rascist graffiti on his walls, as well as point a gun at his nephew's head.

i hate em corn pikin emmigrates, always takin the jobs from us hard workin construction workers, " :!: de too emy jobs"

the "golden door" is for immigrants who are going to go through the proper immigration process, and who wish to have U.S. citizenship, and to work and live in our fine country. the golden door is not for drug smugglers and terrorists.

The vast majority of illegals are people who would LOVE to go through the legal process, if we would open our borders. Drugs sneak through legal channels too, and the vast majority of terrorists A) are not Mexican or coming into the country through Mexico, and B) ARE legal immigrants or aliens.

i hate em corn pikin emmigrates, always takin the jobs from us hard workin construction workers, " :!: de too emy jobs"

well, they do charge about .001 % of what you guys charge. but i sill prefer good ol' americans to do my building.

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Every nation has the right to defend itself.
You should not misplace human rights with civil rights (also refered as citizen rights which aply for citizens ONLY).
I´m all for civil rights (citizen rights).
As I´m from Europe those apply to the national citizens and EU citizens.
But thats not the case for foreigners.
They have NO right to come to our nations and countries. And every nations has the right to use all means to prevent illegal immigrants from coming and also all means to kick those out who already illegally migrated.

[quote="Kybernetia"]Every nation has the right to defend itself.
You should not misplace human rights with civil rights (also refered as citizen rights which aply for citizens ONLY).
I´m all for civil rights (citizen rights).
As I´m from Europe those apply to the national citizens and EU citizens.
But thats not the case for foreigners.
They have NO right to come to our nations and countries. And every nations has the right to use all means to prevent illegal immigrants from coming and also all means to kick those out who already illegally migrated.[/qu

I agree.

as i mentioned in what appears to have been another thread:
a free country with a closed border is a contradiction in terms.

no nation possess MORALY any more soverignty then any city, village or neighborhood council.

=^^=
.../\...

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.
Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
And stop saying "impeached" you half wit!!! You don't impeach Janet Reno, you fire her, dismiss her, terminate employment.
You impeach an ELECTED official, moron, learn the difference.
Youobviously dont live in the United States because you NOTHING of it.
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.


there was a warrant, he was authorized to be deported back to cuba under several INS and cuban laws, force was authorized on the refusal of his famiyl cooperation and the neighborhood

Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

hes a right winger, what world do you expect him to live in? not the real on

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.
Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

Here let me speak in your language mr. FallshiJager err whatever.
You is da idot. have you know law? you is bafoon. what does u no of law? why does you not know civilian rights? Policee cant just exacute searchs of person wit out the warrent.

{i'm doing that by purpose}

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.
Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

Here let me speak in your language mr. FallshiJager err whatever.
You is da idot. have you know law? you is bafoon. what does u no of law? why does you not know civilian rights? Policee cant just exacute searchs of person wit out the warrent.

{i'm doing that by purpose}

Here let me speak in your language mr. FallshiJager err whatever. You is da idot.

Quit flaming.

Forbidden actions:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87887&start=0

Any chance of a rebuttal of Fallschirmjager's points instead of just insulting him/her?

I MENTIONED THE 4TH AMENDMENT!! ANd you mean crowds not crows! Crows are birds. LOL!! You need a warrant to enter someone's else regardless. The house was owned BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!! The people didn't want him to leave. If it were up to me, he would've stayed.

As such, Reno did violate the Law of the Land by not following proper procedure.

Law enforcement does not need a Warrant to enter a home.
You watch far too much television.
Police may enter a home anytime when extigent circumstances can be claimed.
Later, an officer may have to Justify this decision.
Since Elian was being legally deported, he was essentially "barricaded" in the home.
When someone is wanted either for arrest or questioning is "barricaded" the situation becomes an "extigent circumstance" where by a warrant is not required. Since a warrant is not needed for deportation(as that is covered by an order to deport) the angry crowds who claimed they would "stop" the police effected to create a sittuation where the police were well inside their rights.
I am sorry this does not agree with your Law and Order grasp of Search Seizure.
There are thing like "sufficient indicia of reliability" which apply to Probable Cause, which since the Police knew Elian was in the home they had.
There is also "legitimate expectation of privacy" which the residents in the home gave up for media whoring.

Read a book.

Yes you do need a warrent. There was no warrent issued. As such it violated the Law! It also violated a US Citizen's right for them not to enter his home. As such, Whoever was incharge of all of this, needed to be impeached.
Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

Here let me speak in your language mr. FallshiJager err whatever.
You is da idot. have you know law? you is bafoon. what does u no of law? why does you not know civilian rights? Policee cant just exacute searchs of person wit out the warrent.

{i'm doing that by purpose}

heres an idea captain inobvious, read my post

Here let me speak in your language mr. FallshiJager err whatever. You is da idot.

Quit flaming.

quit flaming? he shouldnt go around calling people "idiot" and "baffoon".

If it means keeping Illegal Immigrants out id back anything

quit flaming? he shouldnt go around calling people "idiot" and "baffoon".

Correct: neither of you should.

so while y'all are off at law school.....


lets take a look at what youre really talking about.


mexico/US border south of tucson, arizona.....

man, woman, and their 3 kids coming up from guatemala avoiding brutal conditions in their country. very limited english, nothing but the clothes on their backs.

115 degrees in the shade...if there WERE shade..... the only water available put out by humanitarians at well marked spots known by the border patrols...

as death from heat stroke approaches the family goes to one of these spots now staked out by the army. they are dazed and weak from the heat....

in their panic they try running away when the soldier yells at them to present themselves.

do you REALLY want this 19 year old man to shoot down these defenseless people? you really think its right to kill unarmed families?

personally i think its not the kind of people we are nor the kind of people we want to become nor the kind of thing we want to put our soldiers through. it reminds me way too much of the things the nazis did to the jews. i think we can put up with illegal aliens rather than sink to that level of brutality.

quit flaming? he shouldnt go around calling people "idiot" and "baffoon".

Correct: neither of you should.

good.

Ok, for the ignorant unformed unwashed Akaviir, it is not argueable that Alaska is in the US, last time I checked we still were.

"AS 16.05.180. Power to Search Without Warrant.
Each peace officer designated in AS 16.05.150 may without a warrant search any thing or place if the search is reasonable or is not protected from searches and seizures without warrant within the meaning of art. I, Sec. 14, Alaska State Constitution, which specifically enumerates "persons, houses and other property, papers and effects." However, before a search without warrant is made a signed written statement by the person making the search shall be submitted to the person in control of the property or object to be searched, stating the reason the search is being conducted. A written receipt shall be given by the person conducting the search for property which is taken as a result of the search. The enumeration of specific things does not limit the meaning of words of a general nature."

But I am an Idiot, ok.
Let me continue.

According to the American Bar Association.
"The police are permitted to search your home without a warrant if there are sufficiently exigent circumstances."
Now you bafoon, ask any uniformed police officer what exigent circumstances are and he will be able to answer you.
I realize you are too stupid and lazy to research anything yourself, but I gave a place to start, besides Ally Mcbeal.

Home searches for all persons on probation or parole, with some exceptions, can be done at any time without a warrant by the appropriate state agency. During the course of a search, any items found that are a violation of probation or parole, such as drugs or weapons, can be seized and used as evidence. Additionally, you will be facing additional criminal charges.

"Most searches occur without warrants being issued. Over the years, the courts have defined a number of situations in which a search warrant is not necessary, either because the search is per se reasonable under the circumstances or because, due to a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all. "-----
NOLO (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758)

An easy law lesson (http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/when.html)


The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled that police no longer need search warrants to search private property, including homes, buildings and cars, if their safety is at stake.
Any evidence found during the sweep without a search warrant will be admissible in court.

http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/court/RCD200222.pdf


"A search and seizure made where "exigent" circumstances exist, such as in emergency situations in response to a need for help or where there is reason to believe the suspect will escape if not quickly apprehended. "=== http://www.mobar.org/handbook/search.htm

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/scott.htm


Now my little slackjaws I realize it is a lot of stuff to read, and that you wont read any of it.
You will just spew out more ignorance infecting even more people with it.
But I tried.
The real fact is the 4th amendment has been seriously eroded over the last century. The foolish people who think it hasnt and childishly scream that the police CANT search person or property without a warrant only serve to keep the true severity of the loss of power that amendment has been dealt hidden.

so while y'all are off at law school.....


lets take a look at what youre really talking about.


mexico/US border south of tucson, arizona.....

man, woman, and their 3 kids coming up from guatemala avoiding brutal conditions in their country. very limited english, nothing but the clothes on their backs.

115 degrees in the shade...if there WERE shade..... the only water available put out by humanitarians at well marked spots known by the border patrols...

as death from heat stroke approaches the family goes to one of these spots now staked out by the army. they are dazed and weak from the heat....

in their panic they try running away when the soldier yells at them to present themselves.

do you REALLY want this 19 year old man to shoot down these defenseless people? you really think its right to kill unarmed families?

personally i think its not the kind of people we are nor the kind of people we want to become nor the kind of thing we want to put our soldiers through. it reminds me way too much of the things the nazis did to the jews. i think we can put up with illegal aliens rather than sink to that level of brutality.
I don't want them shot, I want to make sure they end up working for fair wages and good schools for that kid.
I consider myself a stuanch conservitive by the way.
The current administration are not conservatives, there're borderline facist/xenophobes.

Ok, for the ignorant unformed unwashed Akaviir, it is not argueable that Alaska is in the US, last time I checked we still were.

"AS 16.05.180. Power to Search Without Warrant.
Each peace officer designated in AS 16.05.150 may without a warrant search any thing or place if the search is reasonable or is not protected from searches and seizures without warrant within the meaning of art. I, Sec. 14, Alaska State Constitution, which specifically enumerates "persons, houses and other property, papers and effects." However, before a search without warrant is made a signed written statement by the person making the search shall be submitted to the person in control of the property or object to be searched, stating the reason the search is being conducted. A written receipt shall be given by the person conducting the search for property which is taken as a result of the search. The enumeration of specific things does not limit the meaning of words of a general nature."

But I am an Idiot, ok.
Let me continue.

According to the American Bar Association.
"The police are permitted to search your home without a warrant if there are sufficiently exigent circumstances."
Now you bafoon, ask any uniformed police officer what exigent circumstances are and he will be able to answer you.
I realize you are too stupid and lazy to research anything yourself, but I gave a place to start, besides Ally Mcbeal.

Home searches for all persons on probation or parole, with some exceptions, can be done at any time without a warrant by the appropriate state agency. During the course of a search, any items found that are a violation of probation or parole, such as drugs or weapons, can be seized and used as evidence. Additionally, you will be facing additional criminal charges.

"Most searches occur without warrants being issued. Over the years, the courts have defined a number of situations in which a search warrant is not necessary, either because the search is per se reasonable under the circumstances or because, due to a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all. "-----
NOLO (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758)

An easy law lesson (http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/when.html)


The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled that police no longer need search warrants to search private property, including homes, buildings and cars, if their safety is at stake.
Any evidence found during the sweep without a search warrant will be admissible in court.

http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/court/RCD200222.pdf


"A search and seizure made where "exigent" circumstances exist, such as in emergency situations in response to a need for help or where there is reason to believe the suspect will escape if not quickly apprehended. "===http://www.mobar.org/handbook/search.htm

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/scott.htm


Now my little slackjaws I realize it is a lot of stuff to read, and that you wont read any of it.
You will just spew out more ignorance infecting even more people with it.
But I tried.
The real fact is the 4th amendment has been seriously eroded over the last century. The foolish people who think it hasnt and childishly scream that the police CANT search person or property without a warrant only serve to keep the true severity of the loss of power that amendment has been dealt hidden.

i have read all of your links. but since i am a bafoon, and a retard, as well as an idiot, and ignorant asshole, and you are a genius, i agree with whatever you say. i worship you genius.
now back to being serious. i never said that police always need a warrant. what i said was that they had no right to barge into his home with loaded guns, and to damage his property. it is all a violation of his rights as a citizen and human being. but of course, i am an idiot, and you are the genius, so i agree with you.

Why didnt they have the right?
If not the 4th amendment then what?
The one that says you get to not have your stuff broke because you have right to refuse to comply with an Administrative Warrant which was issued in the Elian Gonzalez case prior to entry of the home.
Because I am not familiar with the Constitutional Amendment that protects your right 'not to get yer stuff broke' while failing to comply with law enforcement agencies while in the commision of a legal Administrative Warrant which they had.
No where in the 4th amendment does it say the Judicary must issue the warrant.
So what Right are you talking about?

I am also unfamiliar with the International Commision on Human Rights proclaiming search and seizure rulings.
I thought they were busy with torture, religious oppression, genocide,and the like.
I am sure people in Rwanda will be happy to hear that there is a basic human right 'not to get your stuff broke'.

Akaviir, on page three you started the flaming of ChessSquares.
In that same post you said "FormalDances is right"
FOrmalDances has been argueing the entire time that police need warrants to enter homes.
Never did either of you say except when.
So, if you werent 'saying that' why did you say that?"FormalDances is right".

troops wouldn't be the best answer, maybe troops under the direction of cops/INS/border patrol. all we need to do is enforce the laws we already have, and make and govt benefits only available to people who can produce valid forms of ID, like a birth certificate and a bunch of other stuff, since anyone can get a drivers license by paying a bribe. If an alien is caught, permanently identify him (uv tattoos or whatever) and boot his ass. boot that family from wherever the hell who walked all the way up the continent to break our laws that the reps we elected passed. if they're caught again, then they can do prison labor for nothing for 5 years then get booted again.

troops wouldn't be the best answer, maybe troops under the direction of cops/INS/border patrol. all we need to do is enforce the laws we already have, and make and govt benefits only available to people who can produce valid forms of ID, like a birth certificate and a bunch of other stuff, since anyone can get a drivers license by paying a bribe. If an alien is caught, permanently identify him (uv tattoos or whatever) and boot his ass. boot that family from wherever the hell who walked all the way up the continent to break our laws that the reps we elected passed. if they're caught again, then they can do prison labor for nothing for 5 years then get booted again.

it would be taken care of by requiring employers to get and USE the social security numbers of employees. if "juan" is using the ssn of "john smith" who also seems to be working 10 other full time jobs in the area then he doesnt get hired.

it would be taken care of if hiring an illegal worker go the employer jail time and big fines.

it would be taken care of if, when a pregnant woman came to this country to have her baby, that baby were kept HERE since it is a US citizen but the mother had to be returned to her country.

we have an illegal alien problem because they know they can come here and find work. if that work were gone, the only ones coming in would be drug runners and the truly desperate humanitarian cases.

i have come to the belief that the people in power dont want it taken care of. if there were no illegal aliens who would take care of their children and landscaping?

[quote="Ashmoria"]so while y'all are off at law school.....


lets take a look at what youre really talking about.


mexico/US border south of tucson, arizona.....

man, woman, and their 3 kids coming up from guatemala avoiding brutal conditions in their country. very limited english, nothing but the clothes on their backs.

115 degrees in the shade...if there WERE shade..... the only water available put out by humanitarians at well marked spots known by the border patrols...

as death from heat stroke approaches the family goes to one of these spots now staked out by the army. they are dazed and weak from the heat....

in their panic they try running away when the soldier yells at them to present themselves.

do you REALLY want this 19 year old man to shoot down these defenseless people? you really think its right to kill unarmed families?

personally i think its not the kind of people we are nor the kind of people we want to become nor the kind of thing we want to put our soldiers through. it reminds me way too much of the things the nazis did to the jews. i think we can put up with illegal aliens rather than sink to that level of brutality.[/qu

Ok then put civilians that want to keep them out on the border and let them shoot them.

OK, i'm leaviing this thread untill people get back to their senses. there are a few thigns i have to say, untill at least, people calm down

FallschrimmJager- you should think before calling other people "idiots" and "baffoons" since you are no genius. your argument is valid, but, not in this case. my point is that it is a violation of the uncle's rights to have soldiers barge itno his hoem, with no warrent, and to damage his entire property. i was at the house awhile ago. the walls are cracked, the doors are broken down. they damaged his possesions as well. so calm the hell down, and dont flame people for no reason. {and for the record: you started this stupid flame war}

Formal Dances- There is no point in arguing further, they will never accept it.

You do know that the majority of the Highjackers were illegal immigrants.
no.

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. .... so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.

LOL

Clinton sent back Ellian Gonzales to Cuba jsut so that he can starve o death. .... so that he may be sent back to be killed by Fidel.

LOL

Dont ask.... :oops:

OK, i'm leaviing this thread untill people get back to their senses. there are a few thigns i have to say, untill at least, people calm down

FallschrimmJager- you should think before calling other people "idiots" and "baffoons" since you are no genius. your argument is valid, but, not in this case. my point is that it is a violation of the uncle's rights to have soldiers barge itno his hoem, with no warrent, and to damage his entire property. i was at the house awhile ago. the walls are cracked, the doors are broken down. they damaged his possesions as well. so calm the hell down, and dont flame people for no reason. {and for the record: you started this stupid flame war}

Formal Dances- There is no point in arguing further, they will never accept it.
Flames aside.
Akaviir, they had an Administrative Warrant prior to entry of the home.
No soldiers ever entered his home.
INS agents did.
Border Guard did.
No soldiers did.
I say again the INS issued an Administrative Warrant to take Elian Gonzalez into custody.
While in the commision of Warrant for taking a person into custody a Law Enforcement officer does not need an additional Warrant to enter any Domicile to search for the subject of the Warrant as long as there is reasonable suspicion that the subject is in said domicile.
Since they needed a Warrant to take Elian, and not search a home.
The Warrant was Issued to take Elian which provides entry into any location Elian is in.
If they had issued a Warrant for the House and then Elian was removed they would have no legal right to take Elian into custody.
They had the Warrant for Elian.
They did not need one to enter the house.
And stop saying soldiers, those werent soldiers.
They were federal agents.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Think I read that somewhere... on some big statue of a woman with horns... near New York somewhere...

Sure.....no problem..simply go to your local US Consulate/Embassy, go past the Marine at the front door..make you way to the Visa office, and file the appropirate paperwork for immigration or work visa to be allowed legally into my country...that is how it's done..by crossing the border illegally you are breaking the laws of this country, and since a known percentage of the Mexican illegals are criminals (Border Patrols stats if you don't believe me) they constitute a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

if the embassy is in mexico city and you live on the US/mexican border, where would you go first

Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
And stop saying "impeached" you half wit!!! You don't impeach Janet Reno, you fire her, dismiss her, terminate employment.
You impeach an ELECTED official, moron, learn the difference.
Youobviously dont live in the United States because you NOTHING of it.
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

No I'm still in highschool but I do now something about how the law works.
I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in the real world.
Dont ever call me a bafoon again because I'm not one! As for Executing searches, they ask permission of the owner when they don't have a warrent!
I never mentioned a legal precendent! Don't know where you got that from!
Yes you can Impeach a Cabinet Member. She was confirmed by the Senate as such you can bring impeachment! You can also Impeach a Federal Judge and they are APPOINTED!
I do live in the UNITED STATES! Have most of my life! Lived a couple of my early years overseas because my dad is in the military of our fine nation!
As for Ally McBeal, hated her show!

hes a right winger, what world do you expect him to live in? not the real on

Don't know where you got the idea I'm male! I'm actually a female!

Formal Dances- There is no point in arguing further, they will never accept it.

I know they will never accept it!

...and since a known percentage of the Mexican illegals are criminals (Border Patrols stats if you don't believe me) they constitute a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

Urh, aren't all the illegal immigrants criminals, by definition? As to whether they are a 'clear and present danger' remains to be shown.

if the embassy is in mexico city and you live on the US/mexican border, where would you go first

There are numerous US Consulates within the various Mexican states bordering the US border..all of them are equipped to deal with those who desire to immigrate to the United States. They ostensibly are the facilities to which you go to for work/student visas and or application for immigrant status

...and since a known percentage of the Mexican illegals are criminals (Border Patrols stats if you don't believe me) they constitute a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

Urh, aren't all the illegal immigrants criminals, by definition? As to whether they are a 'clear and present danger' remains to be shown.

Ok..let me rephrase....a known percentage of the Mexican illegals are already known criminals in Mexico, they are those most likely to engage in the cross-border drug smuggling trade or the trade in humans.

These criminals are part and parcel of huge and numerous criminal organizations spread thruout the Southwest...I'd say that makes them a clear and present danger.

Kill 'em all, let God sort'em out.

They come because they're poor and need jobs. Eliminate poverty and the problem goes away.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Everyone has the right to live. If I had my way, I would let them in and help them 'cos no one else is

its been said once, ill say it again, read maddox's view on illegal immigrants

They come because they're poor and need jobs. Eliminate poverty and the problem goes away.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

If they are poor..it would seem to me that their problems should be addressed to Mexican President Vicente Fox....just because your sandbox is messy....don't come to mine and do what you did to your sandbox..clean up your own sandbox first.

Your an Idot, have actually researched the law at all?
Have you ever been to court and fought a search.
Have you ever denied the police accesss to your home.
Have made it out of high school yet?
What fantasy world do you live in.
They dont need a warrant, you bafoon!! Police execute searchs of person and property everyday without warrants.
What legal precident in the United States are you talking about?
I can quote the penal code for 3 states, as well as being versed in actually defending my actions with reguards to police officers?
And stop saying "impeached" you half wit!!! You don't impeach Janet Reno, you fire her, dismiss her, terminate employment.
You impeach an ELECTED official, moron, learn the difference.
Youobviously dont live in the United States because you NOTHING of it.
What about you?
You sound like a big Ally McBeal fan.

No I'm still in highschool but I do now something about how the law works.
I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in the real world.
Dont ever call me a bafoon again because I'm not one! As for Executing searches, they ask permission of the owner when they don't have a warrent!
I never mentioned a legal precendent! Don't know where you got that from!
Yes you can Impeach a Cabinet Member. She was confirmed by the Senate as such you can bring impeachment! You can also Impeach a Federal Judge and they are APPOINTED!
I do live in the UNITED STATES! Have most of my life! Lived a couple of my early years overseas because my dad is in the military of our fine nation!
As for Ally McBeal, hated her show!

hes a right winger, what world do you expect him to live in? not the real on

Don't know where you got the idea I'm male! I'm actually a female!

Formal Dances- There is no point in arguing further, they will never accept it.

I know they will never accept it!
Formal Dances a sited over a dozen instances where the police are niether required to ask perssion or have Warrant to search a home.
Even Akaviir noted that.
So again what fantasy world do you live?
The 5th District Fedral appeals court says "police dont need warrants".

If they are poor..it would seem to me that their problems should be addressed to Mexican President Vicente Fox....just because your sandbox is messy....don't come to mine and do what you did to your sandbox..clean up your own sandbox first.

What, you think governments exist to help the poor? You have a lot to learn.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

"AS 16.05.180. Power to Search Without Warrant.
Each peace officer designated in AS 16.05.150 may without a warrant search any thing or place if the search is reasonable or is not protected from searches and seizures without warrant within the meaning of art. I, Sec. 14, Alaska State Constitution, which specifically enumerates "persons, houses and other property, papers and effects." However, before a search without warrant is made a signed written statement by the person making the search shall be submitted to the person in control of the property or object to be searched, stating the reason the search is being conducted. A written receipt shall be given by the person conducting the search for property which is taken as a result of the search. The enumeration of specific things does not limit the meaning of words of a general nature."

According to the American Bar Association.
"The police are permitted to search your home without a warrant if there are sufficiently exigent circumstances."
Now you bafoon, ask any uniformed police officer what exigent circumstances are and he will be able to answer you.

Home searches for all persons on probation or parole, with some exceptions, can be done at any time without a warrant by the appropriate state agency. During the course of a search, any items found that are a violation of probation or parole, such as drugs or weapons, can be seized and used as evidence. Additionally, you will be facing additional criminal charges.

"Most searches occur without warrants being issued. Over the years, the courts have defined a number of situations in which a search warrant is not necessary, either because the search is per se reasonable under the circumstances or because, due to a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all. "-----
NOLO (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758)

An easy law lesson (http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/when.html)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled that police no longer need search warrants to search private property, including homes, buildings and cars, if their safety is at stake.
Any evidence found during the sweep without a search warrant will be admissible in court.

http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/PDF/court/RCD200222.pdf

"A search and seizure made where "exigent" circumstances exist, such as in emergency situations in response to a need for help or where there is reason to believe the suspect will escape if not quickly apprehended. "=== http://www.mobar.org/handbook/search.htm

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/scott.htm
The real fact is the 4th amendment has been seriously eroded over the last century. The foolish people who think it hasnt and childishly scream that the police CANT search person or property without a warrant only serve to keep the true severity of the loss of power that amendment has been dealt hidden.
In my truthful honest opinion you are a bafoon. I am not falming you I am saying I believe it.

If they are poor..it would seem to me that their problems should be addressed to Mexican President Vicente Fox....just because your sandbox is messy....don't come to mine and do what you did to your sandbox..clean up your own sandbox first.

What, you think governments exist to help the poor? You have a lot to learn.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Oh I have nothing to learn...it's personal responsibility..if Mexico is bad it is because it's citizens do not take the personal responsibility to clean up their own house....they've had as many goverments as they've had years as an sovereign nation..so it's not their governments fault...could it be in the people themselves eh?

Still need the citizen's permission to search your house sweetie!

If they are poor..it would seem to me that their problems should be addressed to Mexican President Vicente Fox....just because your sandbox is messy....don't come to mine and do what you did to your sandbox..clean up your own sandbox first.

What, you think governments exist to help the poor? You have a lot to learn.


If the government isnt doing a good enough job to please the people then they can be replaced, one way or another. Running away from your problems (as emigrants are doing) rather than facing them and trying to solve them can be summed up quite succintly; cowardice.

Still need the citizen's permission to search your house sweetie!
NO. YOU. DON'T.

Still need the citizen's permission to search your house sweetie!
NO. YOU. DON'T.

DON'T. YELL. AT. ME!

If the government isnt doing a good enough job to please the people then they can be replaced, one way or another. Running away from your problems (as emigrants are doing) rather than facing them and trying to solve them can be summed up quite succintly; cowardice.

The problem is that not everyone has heard of anarchism.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

If the government isnt doing a good enough job to please the people then they can be replaced, one way or another. Running away from your problems (as emigrants are doing) rather than facing them and trying to solve them can be summed up quite succintly; cowardice.

Hey! This man just call the Pilgrim Fathers cowards.

Kick illegal immigrants out and sent them back were they came from and were they belong. :evil:

Hmm...is this a thread complaining about illegal immigrants stealing American jobs? If so, this is another instance that Maddox and I share the same views. However, if that isn't what this is about, then ignore my post. (I don't feel like reading through all of them.)

http://maddox.xmission.com

Maddox's take on illegal immigrants. (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#CLUETRAIN)

I´m not taking about the US, I´m taking about Europe.
The EU already has a free market of labour for all its members. The ten new members are going to be included in that within the next seven years.
And I´m reffering to immigration from non-EU countries like from North Africa, Turkey or other parts of the world.
There is no need for unqualified workers to come to Europe. They are not welcomed here. :twisted: