NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a story (http://www.wsmv.com/news/13616557/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news)that has been told so many times, it has almost become cliche. A man is arrested a dozen times but no one picks up on the fact that he resides in the U.S. illegally. So he's released again and again.

Or, the federal authorities are notified, but they're too busy to worry about him. They'll deal with him later.

This time, he celebrates his release by raping a 15 year old. Too bad he deals with the 15 year old first. I'm sure when he's released this time, he'll comply with all the appropriate child molestation laws...right.

These criminals are among the illegal residents that would be given amnesty, if the Democrats and GWB get their way. They're also the ones we need to deport and make sure can never re-enter the country.

This is a story (http://www.wsmv.com/news/13616557/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news)that has been told so many times, it has almost become cliche. A man is arrested a dozen times but no one picks up on the fact that he resides in the U.S. illegally. So he's released again and again.

Or, the federal authorities are notified, but they're too busy to worry about him. They'll deal with him later.

This time, he celebrates his release by raping a 15 year old. Too bad he deals with the 15 year old first. I'm sure when he's released this time, he'll comply with all the appropriate child molestation laws...right.

These criminals are among the illegal residents that would be given amnesty, if the Democrats and GWB get their way. They're also the ones we need to deport and make sure can never re-enter the country.

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?

Surly the bit to focus on is the rape?

By The White Stripes

Well, Americans:
What, nothin' better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too.


Yes illegal immigration is a problem but this little verse also pops up in my mind. Okay I don;t agree with the whole amnesty thing but I don't think illegal immigrants should all be lumped as job stealing benefit fraud monsters.

The actions of a criminal-minded individual, such as this fail to reflect the true nature of the illegal migrants. While the migrants may be in America illegally, they are likely already law-abiding citizens. In many cases, some probably came on visas and have very little money and when the visa expired were unable to get back so they stayed and work.

They aren't all fraudulent people. They don't come to defraud the system, take advantage of welfare etc.

This argument involving the illegal migrants (immigrants if you will) reminds me of the Vietamese refugees who came to Canada by boat during the war. They were very unwelcomed at first. People claimed that these immigrants would take our jobs and ruin the economy. While I don't have the study on hand, there was one done twenty years after they arrived and it found that all the immigrants who came here had found jobs and their children had been educated. The same study found that this group of people were just thankful that they had a chance to find jobs and live their lives.

By giving these people a chance, they were able to contribute to the overall welfare of the nation.

I believe that there is a problem with illegal immigration because of "application fees", aka, headtaxes that still exist.

In Canada we have an application processing fee that is $1700 per application, and that can be steep for many families and immigrants.

People who may be skilled may not be able to afford it because the cost of living in their homeland may be significantly less and they wouldn't have the money. But they want to come but can't accord that fee.

I'm not justifying the illegal actions, I'm simply saying that the current existing obstacles are one reason why people don't try and go through the system, they try and circumvent it. The system leaves out many potentially skilled people because of bureaucratic boondoggling, red tape and fees, as well as massive backlogs.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?
One you can be racist/bigoted about and have everyone agree with you.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

I hope you're being sarcastic.
That, or don't mind inbreeding.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

60 generations? Jeez you're out of your mind. So myself as a 3rd generation immigrant should go back to where my grandparents came from? Oh yes great logic there.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

My question is, where do people of extremely mixed heritage go? :)

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?

Surly the bit to focus on is the rape?

quite, i'm more concerned that the US justice system has managed to let a clearly unreformed and very dangerous person go free so many times when he is a clear a danger to society.

Yes illegal immigration is a problem but this little verse also pops up in my mind. Okay I don;t agree with the whole amnesty thing but I don't think illegal immigrants should all be lumped as job stealing benefit fraud monsters.how about we concentrate only on those that fit that discription. ;)

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong. except those that were born here would be considered Immigrants to their "home" Country. thus they would be shipped to where they 'belong'... being the country that they were born in.

and those that remain... well... I would like to see what they would do with all that open land.

60 generations? Jeez you're out of your mind. So myself as a 3rd generation immigrant should go back to where my grandparents came from? Oh yes great logic there.

I think the intent was to show that we are all immigrants, and so any anti immigrant rhetoric is just plain stupidity.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

But, that would mean us Europeans would have all those people back that didn't fit in here very well back then. Let alone nowadays...:eek::p

The actions of a criminal-minded individual, such as this fail to reflect the true nature of the illegal migrants. While the migrants may be in America illegally, they are likely already law-abiding citizens. In many cases, some probably came on visas and have very little money and when the visa expired were unable to get back so they stayed and work.
[deleted]
I'm not justifying the illegal actions, I'm simply saying that the current existing obstacles are one reason why people don't try and go through the system, they try and circumvent it. The system leaves out many potentially skilled people because of bureaucratic boondoggling, red tape and fees, as well as massive backlogs.

Never did I suggest deporting law-abiding illegal residents. ( that's a hell of an oxymoron, but it's early) I wouldn't mind, but it's impractical and it's not what Americans do to immigrants that really want to be Americans.

My beef is with the non-treatment that illegal residents get when they are arrested time and time again. Even worse are the actions by communities that don't permit law enforcement to determine the residency status of a suspect.

And I don't buy the idea that it costs too much to come to America legally. Mexicans, for example, generally pay a guide for his services. The fees seem to start out around $1000 USD and go up from there. I would expect that someone from Guatemala or Honduras or elsewhere in Central America is going to pay more.

My question is, where do people of extremely mixed heritage go? :)

Well lets see. I guess if we go back far enough, we can all lay claim to being African! Yeah we should just go back to Africa.

quite, i'm more concerned that the US justice system has managed to let a clearly unreformed and very dangerous person go free so many times when he is a clear a danger to society.

Indeed.

But, that would mean us Europeans would have all those people back that didn't fit in here very well back then. Let alone nowadays...:eek::p

Bwhaha can you see all them Aussies wanting to come back to dear old Blighty?

'Naa mate, it's too bloody cold'

My question is, where do people of extremely mixed heritage go? :)

Hmmm. Use some sort of device to split them into several copies of themself, and send each copy to one of their places of origin. *nod*

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

oh no. Please don't give us all those fundies...

Well lets see. I guess if we go back far enough, we can all lay claim to being African! Yeah we should just go back to Africa.

6.5 billion people in the Great Rift Valley. That might be a touch cramped.

quite, i'm more concerned that the US justice system has managed to let a clearly unreformed and very dangerous person go free so many times when he is a clear a danger to society.

True, it's not the illegal immigration that is the main problem here. It's letting out a multiple fuckup.

True, it's not the illegal immigration that is the main problem here. It's letting out a multiple fuckup.
Neocons don't let silly little things like facts and common sense get in the way of bigotry.

True, it's not the illegal immigration that is the main problem here. It's letting out a multiple fuckup.
Why should we continue to accommodate an illegal resident that is also an habitual criminal?

Once an illegal immigrant makes himself known to authorities, I dont understand why he isnt photgraphed,fingerprinted and escorted out of our country.
And when they commit a violent crime? Our jails our overcrowded with our own criminal citizens,we dont need to house & feed someone else's felons.

True, it's not the illegal immigration that is the main problem here. It's letting out a multiple fuckup.

Its a compound problem.

Its a multiple fuckup that we shouldnt be dealing with in the first place.

If the multiple fuckup entered and lived in our country legally, then he would be our problem to deal with.

But he didnt. He should be a burden on his own society.

Why should we continue to accommodate an illegal resident that is also an habitual criminal?

We shouldn't. Give him a long-ass jail sentence, THEN send him home.

Neocons don't let silly little things like facts and common sense get in the way of bigotry.

So far, you display your own bigotry toward people who dont see things your way on a pretty regualr basis.

Or-its only bigotry when brown people are concerned?

Its really only "bigotry" if it suits your purposes.

Or-its only bigotry when brown people are concerned?
Hypocritical much?

We shouldn't. Give him a long-ass jail sentence, THEN send him home.

I'm against jailing them here. We have enough of our own legal resident violent felons with nothing to lose-we dont need to deal with our neighbor's trash too.

Arrest them. Fingerprint,photograph and take a DNA sample. Turn them over to authorities in their home country with full detailed report,evidence.
Let them house and "rehabilitate" as they see fit.

We shouldn't. Give him a long-ass jail sentence, THEN send him home.
It would be far more effective to have him serve that sentence in his home country, but there's not much chance of that happening. I'd rather not put illegal residents in our prisons anymore that I want to give them access to our other governmental services.

On the bright side, he's probably looking at doing time for other crimes when he gets home...All the more reason to restore him to his country of origin.

Neocons don't let silly little things like facts and common sense get in the way of bigotry.

So far, you display your own bigotry toward people who dont see things your way on a pretty regualr basis.

Or-its only bigotry when brown people are concerned?

Its really only "bigotry" if it suits your purposes.

I've never actually seen the word 'neocon' used in a meaningful context. Usually the user just has a limited vocabulary and a even more limited capability to use it.

I've never actually seen the word 'neocon' used in a meaningful context. Usually the user just has a limited vocabulary and a even more limited capability to use it.

I was wondering about all of the neo/new malarky. It's like a new label to hide the same shit behind. Why not just call Conservatives, Conservatives? What next neo-facists?

Don't listen to him talk out his ass, he knows perfectly well what it means and its context.

Neocon would be the new breed of conservatives who are in no definition of the word conservative. They just sit around all day espousing practically fascist bullshit about what to do with "brown people" and about "liberals" and about how we arn't forcing enough religion down peoples' throats.

I was wondering about all of the neo/new malarky. It's like a new label to hide the same shit behind. Why not just call Conservatives, Conservatives? What next neo-facists?
This is the way I see it. Liberals don't like being called liberal, by and large, so they ( the Democrats that are still sore that Gore wasn't elected in 2000) have coined a phrase to make conservatives squirm. I don't think it does, but I may be wrong. The context is more on the order of GWB and his supporters than of real conservatives. GWB Fan-Boy might be the most accurate description.

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?

Surly the bit to focus on is the rape?

you can get rid of the illegal.

and it would have been prevented anyway if people did the job they are meant to do.

This is the way I see it. Liberals don't like being called liberal, by and large, so they ( the Democrats that are still sore that Gore wasn't elected in 2000) have coined a phrase to make conservatives squirm. I don't think it does, but I may be wrong. The context is more on the order of GWB and his supporters than of real conservatives. GWB Fan-Boy might be the most accurate description.

It's a Sociological term. I picked it up in Soc 101, though I don't use it much, as it rarely applies to anyone here.

There ARE Neo-liberals. Clinton could be described as one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con

Myrmidonisia is, as usual, obfuscating the issue. Liberals don't like the term "liberal" being used by people such as Myrmidonisia as if it was a bad word and thus applied as an insult. "Liberals" arn't as stupid as the neocons like to lead you to believe they are.

It's a Sociological term. I picked it up in Soc 101, though I don't use it much, as it rarely applies to anyone here.

There ARE Neo-liberals. Clinton could be described as one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con
How interesting. It's actually targeted, derisively of course, at people like David Horowitz. Old line liberals that realized it was a failed philosophy...

I don't know about Clinton embracing the Adam Smith school of economics, though. I figure that's more Libertarian party territory...A party that I pay dues to, by the way.

This is the way I see it. Liberals don't like being called liberal, by and large, so they ( the Democrats that are still sore that Gore wasn't elected in 2000) have coined a phrase to make conservatives squirm. I don't think it does, but I may be wrong. The context is more on the order of GWB and his supporters than of real conservatives. GWB Fan-Boy might be the most accurate description.

Wait liberals don't like being called liberal? Man I would say that I'm liberal, well okay I'm socialist but I'm a liberal socialst, and I have no problems with people calling me be any of these terms.

Please, let's not turn this into a pissing contest as well.

We've been down this road before. Name calling really gets us nowhere and just detracts from the topic... oh wait, this is NSG, being on topic is tabboo.

Don't listen to him talk out his ass, he knows perfectly well what it means and its context.

Neocon would be the new breed of conservatives who are in no definition of the word conservative. They just sit around all day espousing practically fascist bullshit about what to do with "brown people" and about "liberals" and about how we arn't forcing enough religion down peoples' throats.

In all fairness,you do a fair share of espousing and are hardly tolerant of anyone that doesnt agree with you.
And you're very quick with a derogatory label for anyone that doesnt agree with you.

maybe I'm liberal-in the true sense of the word.
And I've never tried to push my personal faith on anyone-I despise people that do.

And I judge people by their actions,not their skin color or faith.

In this case, I dont want illegal immigrants here to start with. I'd like to see them follow the same path as my ancestors. And not get some special treatment because they are fucking up.
Second to that,I dont want people that already have a felony record before they try to get in,legally or otherwise.

Lastly-I really dont give a flying fuck what color they are. As long as they want to love this country and intend to contribute,not just take advantage.

I associate with people of my faith and color that are useless scum and I'm also close to people that are a different faith and color from me that I love,admire and respect. Our doctor that probably saved my wife's life, a close relative's wife-just two examples of people not like me in many ways, but just like me in so many other ways.

So-use whatever name for me that makes YOU feel better about yourself. I dont care how most people would catergorize me.

Please, let's not turn this into a pissing contest as well.

We've been down this road before. Name calling really gets us nowhere and just detracts from the topic... oh wait, this is NSG, being on topic is tabboo.

You more than win the thread. You win the whole forum. :D

Wait liberals don't like being called liberal? Man I would say that I'm liberal, well okay I'm socialist but I'm a liberal socialst, and I have no problems with people calling me be any of these terms.
Sure, there are exceptions to any generalization. In the U.S., liberals generally don't like being called liberal, though.

I was working near the University of New Mexico a short while ago. I went to a crowded restaurant and rather than wait to be seated, I went to the bar.

I sat next to a fellow and started talking with him. He was an engineering prof, so we had some common ground. The talk started turning towards current events and he mentioned something trivial -- I don't even remember what it was, now.

But I asked -- "You must be a liberal, right". And rather than a simple yes or no, I got a bunch of backstroking about how he wasn't really liberal...I said forget it and we went back to talking about how dumb televised poker games were...

No, specific cases don't make generalizations, but the lack of descriptive uses of liberal for politicians makes me feel that way, along with any number of encounters like the one I described. I suspect liberal is somehow connotatively equated to communist or socialist and that's why people shy away from that label.

Please, let's not turn this into a pissing contest as well.

We've been down this road before. Name calling really gets us nowhere and just detracts from the topic... oh wait, this is NSG, being on topic is tabboo.

I think the topic is about dead. You either oppose illegal immigration and are a racist, or you don't and you are naive.

Does that about sum it up?

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?

Surly the bit to focus on is the rape?

the difference is these people get away with it since they are illegal, they get re released into society and do it again, and no one keeps track of these people like our own citizens. If a rapist was a citizen, he would be tracked by the local police forces. The illegals are not tracked by the police, because they are illegal, and have no real identity here in America

I agree that we need to crack down on these people and deport them.

I think the topic is about dead. You either oppose illegal immigration and are a racist, or you don't and you are naive.

Does that about sum it up?

I oppose illegal imigration and I am not a racist. How dare you say such a stupid thing? I dont hate these people, I just want them to come to our country legally, thats all.

the difference is these people get away with it since they are illegal, they get re released into society and do it again, and no one keeps track of these people like our own citizens. If a rapist was a citizen, he would be tracked by the local police forces. The illegals are not tracked by the police, because they are illegal, and have no real identity here in America
So he is caught and released? So the police would track down a citizen who has been caught and released? That sounds like police harassment.

This is not a problem of illegal immigrants committing crimes, it is a failure of the justice system, end of story. The bigots can spin it to make it sound like whatever they want, and they do, that doesn't mean that is what it is about.

So he is caught and released? So the police would track down a citizen who has been caught and released? That sounds like police harassment.

This is not a problem of illegal immigrants committing crimes, it is a failure of the justice system, end of story. The bigots can spin it to make it sound like whatever they want, and they do, that doesn't mean that is what it is about.

There is a law in my state that keeps tabs on sex offenders that are citizens. There is no such law that keeps track of sex offenders that are illegal imigrants. It is not at all police harasment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahkourlis
I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.


Sixty generations? Dude, that would be farther back then when the conquistadors arrived. Th United Sates is maybe only twenty generations old. (Generations can last a loooong time)

And about this subject. Its a typical California mindset. 'We can't send them back, they need us!" Right.... we can send them back just fine. In fact..... hmmm.... according to a study done by the LA Times, most crimes in LA are commited by Illegals, most Illegals are in gangs... the list goes on.

So he is caught and released? So the police would track down a citizen who has been caught and released? That sounds like police harassment.

This is not a problem of illegal immigrants committing crimes, it is a failure of the justice system, end of story. The bigots can spin it to make it sound like whatever they want, and they do, that doesn't mean that is what it is about.

There is a law in my state that makes all sex offenders b tracked by the local authorities, as to keep tabs on them. There is no such law to track illegal imigrants who do this kind of thing.

The justice system fails because it convicts these criminals, but does not force them to be deported back to their home country.

I oppose illegal imigration and I am not a racist. How dare you say such a stupid thing? I dont hate these people, I just want them to come to our country legally, thats all.

And if they can't or have been refused entry on the grounds of asylum, yet are in danger if they stay in their own country. What would you suggest they do?

Or turn it around, what would you attempt to do in that sort of position?

And if they can't or have been refused entry on the grounds of asylum, yet are in danger if they stay in their own country. What would you suggest they do?

Or turn it around, what would you attempt to do in that sort of position?



Try an enter as leagally as possible.

And if they can't or have been refused entry on the grounds of asylum, yet are in danger if they stay in their own country. What would you suggest they do?

Or turn it around, what would you attempt to do in that sort of position?

Enter illegally while understanding what I had done was enter illegally

There is a law in my state that makes all sex offenders b tracked by the local authorities, as to keep tabs on them. There is no such law to track illegal imigrants who do this kind of thing.
The tracking of sex offenders is touch and go. They can and do go off radar fairly easily.

The justice system fails because it convicts these criminals, but does not force them to be deported back to their home country.
Potaeto, potahto. The justice system failed; it had nothing to do with them being illegal immigrants.

Potaeto, potahto. The justice system failed; it had nothing to do with them being illegal immigrants.

*agrees*

Potaeto, potahto. The justice system failed; it had nothing to do with them being illegal immigrants.

Yeah, the US justice system doe fail alot these days... Mainly due to those damn democrats....

Enter illegally while understanding what I had done was enter illegally

Exactly, like most generalisations, it's no good lumping all illegal imigrants into the same errr lump?

Until we look at each case, we just don't know ether it is humaniterian to boot them out. We must treat each case by it's own merits. Those that have no humaiterian cause to entering a country illeagly then I guess should be deported. However I'll say right now that this concept of closed borders, and ownership of countires seems backward.

By what right does anybody own a country, and by what right am I not allowed to move freely throughout the world?

Exactly, like most generalisations, it's no good lumping all illegal imigrants into the same errr lump?

Until we look at each case, we just don't know ether it is humaniterian to boot them out. We must treat each case by it's own merits. Those that have no humaiterian cause to entering a country illeagly then I guess should be deported. However I'll say right now that this concept of closed borders, and ownership of countires seems backward.

By what right does anybody own a country, and by what right am I not allowed to move freely throughout the world?



Blah blah blah, their illegal and they drain wellfare from where its needed. 'Nuff said. (Actually, unless your country is in totall anarchy, the Government owns it, and they say you get to move where they want you to.)

6.5 billion people in the Great Rift Valley. That might be a touch cramped.

At least it's getting wider.

Blah blah blah, their illegal and they drain wellfair from where its needed. 'Nuff said. (Actually, unless your country is in totall anarchy, the Government owns it, and they say you get to move where they want you to.)

It's a called dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com), use it!

What is the differance between a home grown rapist and an immergrant(legal or otherwise) rapist?

Surly the bit to focus on is the rape?

Quite correct; a similar comment might be made in regard to hate crimes.

However, I'll support anything involving deporting immigrants.

However, I'll support anything involving deporting immigrants.

Finally, a man with some sense!

Arrest them. Fingerprint,photograph and take a DNA sample. Turn them over to authorities in their home country with full detailed report,evidence.
Let them house and "rehabilitate" as they see fit.

Problem is that they haven't committed any crimes in Mexico, so the Mexican government can't prosecute them. There are treaties in place wherein inmates can be traded after they have been tried in the country where they committed the crime, but it's up to the prosecution and the inmate whether to take the trade.

It'd be good to see a system in which people convicted of violent crimes are in police databases all around the continent, or some kind of continental FBI, but there's enough trouble with trying to organize diverse local police bodies to have this on top.

Problem is that they haven't committed any crimes in Mexico, so the Mexican government can't prosecute them. There are treaties in place wherein inmates can be traded after they have been tried in the country where they committed the crime, but it's up to the prosecution and the inmate whether to take the trade.

It'd be good to see a system in which people convicted of violent crimes are in police databases all around the continent, or some kind of continental FBI, but there's enough trouble with trying to organize diverse local police bodies to have this on top.


Lets face it, the US police just doesn't have the equipment and funding the FBI does, else they would be several times more effective in these kinds of situations.

Blah blah blah, their illegal and they drain wellfare from where its needed. 'Nuff said. (Actually, unless your country is in totall anarchy, the Government owns it, and they say you get to move where they want you to.)

So by that logic, then we should just kill all prisoners, it would be less of a drain.
Yeah and by what right does the goverment own the country?

Finally, a man with some sense!

*explodes*

Finally, a man with some sense!

Umm you do know that she is woman?

the difference is these people get away with it since they are illegal, they get re released into society and do it again, and no one keeps track of these people like our own citizens. If a rapist was a citizen, he would be tracked by the local police forces. The illegals are not tracked by the police, because they are illegal, and have no real identity here in America

I agree that we need to crack down on these people and deport them.

No, rapists are sent to jail. It's petty crime that sees them released time and time again, and police doesn't keep track of anybody for petty crime, legal or illegal. Also legal residents in the US can slip quite easily and take on a new identity, new driver license, new residence, etc. quite easily. It's not like anyone is being followed in the US, or like there is a unique ID number assigned to people.

Illegal residents do have an identity, same as everyone else, and can be tracked just as well or as badly as anyone else in the US.

Lets face it, the US police just doesn't have the equipment and funding the FBI does, else they would be several times more effective in these kinds of situations.
It's almost the opposite of that.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes state and local law enforcement to work with federal agencies like ICE to identify and deport illegal aliens. Six Cobb County, Georgia deputies went through an extensive training program for four weeks at an ICE training center in Herndon, Virginia and graduated June 8, 2007.

They are now ready to head to the jail house and start saving the taxpayers of Cobb County some serious tax dollars and to rid this country of some illegal alien thugs and criminals.

I oppose illegal imigration and I am not a racist. How dare you say such a stupid thing? I dont hate these people, I just want them to come to our country legally, thats all.

I left off the sarcasm tags because I thought the text stood for itself. I was clearly wrong.

This is a story (http://www.wsmv.com/news/13616557/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news)that has been told so many times, it has almost become cliche. A man is arrested a dozen times but no one picks up on the fact that he resides in the U.S. illegally. So he's released again and again.

Or, the federal authorities are notified, but they're too busy to worry about him. They'll deal with him later.

This time, he celebrates his release by raping a 15 year old. Too bad he deals with the 15 year old first. I'm sure when he's released this time, he'll comply with all the appropriate child molestation laws...right.

These criminals are among the illegal residents that would be given amnesty, if the Democrats and GWB get their way. They're also the ones we need to deport and make sure can never re-enter the country.

So - he was a rapist, because he was an illegal immigrant?

And - let me understand what you are saying here... you are implying that democrats would have a 'rapist amnesty'?

So - he was a rapist, because he was an illegal immigrant?

And - let me understand what you are saying here... you are implying that democrats would have a 'rapist amnesty'?
You see the basis for my accusation of bigotry and possibly racism.

It'd be good to see a system in which people convicted of violent crimes are in police databases all around the continent, or some kind of continental FBI, but there's enough trouble with trying to organize diverse local police bodies to have this on top.

They do need to cooperate and share info. I think if the individual has a record of violent crime in his own country, he should be barred from entering here-And visa versa.
And if the individual commits a violent crime here,his home country should be notified.

Properly identifying the individual and keeping records accurately would be a nightmare.

As others have said uptrhread, we are discussing two separate issues here: illegal immigration and the laxity of the US criminal justice system in terms of violent offenders. But when an illegal immigrant becomes a violent offender, the two worlds meet.

I don't understand why people who are charged with violent crimes aren't simply deported if they are in the USA illegally. I know people who got their green card during the last amnesty, and if such a practice had been in place, they would still have received it, as such a policy only punishes violent criminals.

Most illegal immigrants would not be deported simply because they do not involve themselves in violent crime.

I think there should be an amnesty program, but I would implement it differently, making full citizenship conditional on a clean criminal record.

This is the way I see it. Liberals don't like being called liberal, by and large, so they ( the Democrats that are still sore that Gore wasn't elected in 2000) have coined a phrase to make conservatives squirm. I don't think it does, but I may be wrong. The context is more on the order of GWB and his supporters than of real conservatives. GWB Fan-Boy might be the most accurate description.

There is a huge difference between Neo-Cons and regular conservatives.

The big difference is that Neo-Cons tend to fly in the face of actual conservatives, while somehow still getting the Conservative vote.

And if they can't or have been refused entry on the grounds of asylum, yet are in danger if they stay in their own country. What would you suggest they do?

Or turn it around, what would you attempt to do in that sort of position?

The matter of the fact though, is that most illegals do not come here illegally becasue they are refused access due to asylum. They are kept out because of their criminal records. These criminals thus cross ilegally. The illegals also cross ilegally because the process to get the green crd to work is a long and ardous process, I know, my friend from Romania had to wait almost 5 years to get a green card for study here.

There is a huge difference between Neo-Cons and regular conservatives.

The big difference is that Neo-Cons tend to fly in the face of actual conservatives, while somehow still getting the Conservative vote.

Sooo perhaps they should be called something witout the word conservative in it?

There is a huge difference between Neo-Cons and regular conservatives.

The big difference is that Neo-Cons tend to fly in the face of actual conservatives, while somehow still getting the Conservative vote.
Who gives a flying fuck? It's not like there's anything redeemable in conservatism . Both ideologies are reprehensible.
Umm you do know that she is woman?
Chris is a women? I was under the impression that he was a dandy. In any case, he/she is quite the bigot.

My, my, how we get so defensive about imaginary lines. Rape is rape. It's wrong because it harms someone else.

Guess what crossing a border does?
Not harm anybody?
Bingo.

Sooo perhaps they should be called something witout the word conservative in it?

Yes.

Some would call them Fascists. Those are teenage communist wannabes(I'm a commie, and even I can smell their bullshit). And those would be wrong. Fascism is quite a bit different(Although the term itself is difficult to define, and a bit vague, there is a difference).

Their not "liberal".

Basically, they are for big government, big government spending, and changes that they favor. The difference between them and liberals, however, is largely that they support lower taxes(but for the most part more spending than conservatives), whereas "liberals" tend to support higher taxes.

Then, basically, you have conservatives who want small government(relatively speaking), less government spending(Relatively speaking), less or slower change economically and socially(relatively speaking), and lower taxes(Relatively speaking).

So, basically, they only thing "Neo-Cons" and "Conservatives" have in common are lower taxes. Other than that... not much.

That's only really for economics.

Once you get into social aspects, it gets even worse and more convoluted. You can social liberals, that are economic conservatives, you can have economic liberals, that are social conservatives, social conservatives that are economic conservatives, and any mix of the two to the many different extremes.

Hmm, police incompetence => mass deportations.

I think there's something missing in this train of thought.

So - he was a rapist, because he was an illegal immigrant?

And - let me understand what you are saying here... you are implying that democrats would have a 'rapist amnesty'?
I think you understand perfectly. The provisions in the recently considered legislation would have inadvertently allowed convicted criminals to gain legal residency.

Sure, there are exceptions to any generalization. In the U.S., liberals generally don't like being called liberal, though.

Heh no doubt you find this to be so. Because when you say "liberal," you mean it as an insulting stereotype. You mean a Michael Moore fan, a hippie, a college kid with no job, you mean a vegetarian or veygan who's into the new age, who's against the death penalty, who supports abortion, who's politically correct in terms of all language, who's a radical feminist, a soccer mom, an atheist, a terrorist supporter, a pacifist, a military- and America-hater, an anti-business, pro-big-government, pro-taxation douchebag.

That's all words like "liberal" mean nowadays, they are stupid, contradictory, insulting labels designed only to simplistically divide the entire world into two camps so they can fight it out at the high school football stadium (which has two sides, you see. So we can't have three or more sides, there just aren't enough cheerleaders!)

So yeah, I don't like having stupid, contradictory and insulting labels applied to my life by people who don't even know what the fuck I believe or why.

Perhaps you do though?

Hmm, police incompetence => mass deportations.

I think there's something missing in this train of thought.
Yes there is. It's your understanding the proposition that I outlined in the first post.

Heh no doubt you find this to be so. Because when you say "liberal," you mean it as an insulting stereotype. You mean a Michael Moore fan, a hippie, a college kid with no job, you mean a vegetarian or veygan who's into the new age, who's against the death penalty, who supports abortion, who's politically correct in terms of all language, who's a radical feminist, a soccer mom, an atheist, a terrorist supporter, a pacifist, a military- and America-hater, an anti-business, pro-big-government, pro-taxation douchebag.

Exactly, and well said. 'Liberal' has all the smug connotations of "everything that's wrong with the world". It's rather pathetic actually.

Because when you say "liberal," you mean it as an insulting stereotype. You mean a Michael Moore fan, a hippie, a college kid with no job, you mean a vegetarian or veygan who's into the new age, who's against the death penalty, who supports abortion, who's politically correct in terms of all language, who's a radical feminist, a soccer mom, an atheist, a terrorist supporter, a pacifist, a military- and America-hater, an anti-business, pro-big-government, pro-taxation douchebag.

Well, 5 out of 16 isn't bad, I guess.

Heh no doubt you find this to be so. Because when you say "liberal," you mean it as an insulting stereotype. You mean a Michael Moore fan, a hippie, a college kid with no job, you mean a vegetarian or veygan who's into the new age, who's against the death penalty, who supports abortion, who's politically correct in terms of all language, who's a radical feminist, a soccer mom, an atheist, a terrorist supporter, a pacifist, a military- and America-hater, an anti-business, pro-big-government, pro-taxation douchebag.

That's all words like "liberal" mean nowadays, they are stupid, contradictory, insulting labels designed only to simplistically divide the entire world into two camps so they can fight it out at the high school football stadium (which has two sides, you see. So we can't have three or more sides, there just aren't enough cheerleaders!)

So yeah, I don't like having stupid, contradictory and insulting labels applied to my life by people who don't even know what the fuck I believe or why.

Perhaps you do though?
Aw gee, now you've hurt my feelings. Did you really mean to hit the send button on this post? Surely it's not too late to take back this incomprehensible garbage.

Yes there is. It's your understanding the proposition that I outlined in the first post.

Ah yes, of course. Must be my liberal-ness.

Or, you know, you're trying to use a single case of police incompetence ("A man is arrested a dozen times but no one picks up on the fact that he resides in the U.S. illegally.") as a pathetic excuse to try to paint every illegal immigrant as a criminal rapist - or that amnesty is wrong because of this one case - or that mass deportation, Nazi-style, is ever a good idea.

Yeah I think I know where you're coming from. I know it all too well.

Aw gee, now you've hurt my feelings. Did you really mean to hit the send button on this post? Surely it's not too late to take back this incomprehensible garbage.

Maybe it's "incomprehensible" because you haven't learned English well enough to read it. Get out of my country.

Aw gee, now you've hurt my feelings. Did you really mean to hit the send button on this post? Surely it's not too late to take back this incomprehensible garbage.

I could say the same about most of the things you post.

See how easy it is?

These criminals are among the illegal residents that would be given amnesty, if the Democrats and GWB get their way. They're also the ones we need to deport and make sure can never re-enter the country.

Thanks, now I never have to take you seriously again.

I think you understand perfectly. The provisions in the recently considered legislation would have inadvertently allowed convicted criminals to gain legal residency.

I think you missed the point. Just because he's a legal U.S. resident doesn't mean we can't arrest him.

I think you missed the point. Just because he's a legal U.S. resident doesn't mean we can't arrest him.

It does, however, eliminate an easier path for legal redress.

If an illegal commits a crime in the US, and we don't want to house him or try him here (because that costs money), we can simply deport him back to where he came from. If a US resident commits a crime - hey, we have to go through the whole trial and jail thing.

Of course, deportation doesn't work unless you have adequate means of ensuring that he won't come back, and one might surmise that such an offender would certainly do that, since he risked so much just to come here in the first place.

Aw gee, now you've hurt my feelings. Did you really mean to hit the send button on this post? Surely it's not too late to take back this incomprehensible garbage.

Don't take it personally. Greater Trostia contracted the inucrable disease "moron" at birth, the doctors have tried everything to cure him. A real tragedy I feel; surely he has a personality under all that resentment and rabid zealotry.

move along....nothing to see here....

It does, however, eliminate an easier path for legal redress.

If an illegal commits a crime in the US, and we don't want to house him or try him here (because that costs money), we can simply deport him back to where he came from. If a US resident commits a crime - hey, we have to go through the whole trial and jail thing.

Of course, deportation doesn't work unless you have adequate means of ensuring that he won't come back, and one might surmise that such an offender would certainly do that, since he risked so much just to come here in the first place.

Who needs silly little things like trials :rolleyes:

I could say the same about most of the things you post.

Try everything he posts.

Umm you do know that she is woman?

You could have told me. All thses years, and I am, in fact, a women. You'd have thought I would have noticed really:rolleyes:

You could have told me. All thses years, and I am, in fact, a women. You'd have thought I would have noticed really:rolleyes:

Ahhhh damn you and your maleness, it was both a test for the thruth of the matter(congrats you passed) and admitedly I was trying to get a rise!:eek:

Exactly, like most generalisations, it's no good lumping all illegal imigrants into the same errr lump?

Until we look at each case, we just don't know ether it is humaniterian to boot them out. We must treat each case by it's own merits. Those that have no humaiterian cause to entering a country illeagly then I guess should be deported. However I'll say right now that this concept of closed borders, and ownership of countires seems backward.

By what right does anybody own a country, and by what right am I not allowed to move freely throughout the world?

Isn't there a system whereby people can claim asylum if they are in a country illegally and would be in danger if sent home? The cases are being treated by their own merits already I thought

Isn't there a system whereby people can claim asylum if they are in a country illegally and would be in danger if sent home? The cases are being treated by their own merits already I thought

You! You can't fool me with your logic, begone!

Don't take it personally. Greater Trostia contracted the inucrable disease "moron" at birth, the doctors have tried everything to cure him. A real tragedy I feel; surely he has a personality under all that resentment and rabid zealotry.
Was that supposed to be funny?

Really, though, I'm sure you have a sense of humor under all that smug bigotry and hatred.

Who needs silly little things like trials :rolleyes:

If you're an illegal alien, a simple hearing to have you prove you're a US citizen or legal US resident should do.

You! You can't fool me with your logic, begone!

The power of the beard compels me *melts*

Was that supposed to be funny?

Really, though, I'm sure you have a sense of humor under all that smug bigotry and hatred.

Just an observation.

Who needs silly little things like trials :rolleyes:

Don't you see? They are already illegal immigrants, thus if they are picked up for a crime, they are obviously committed said crime.

Flawless logic.:rolleyes:

Just an observation.

Labeling "moron" a disease and then describing how doctors have tried to cure someone of it is not "just an observation." It was a pathetic attempt by you to reach down into what little is left of your humanity and attempt to be humorous. You could not have failed more completely.

Was that supposed to be funny?

Really, though, I'm sure you have a sense of humor under all that smug bigotry and hatred.

You would think that a self-professed emo, as I seem to remember chris claimed some time ago, wouldn't be that way, you know since emos are all about 'nobody understands me' and 'accept me for how I am!' types.

Seems... hypocritical.(Apologies if I am thinking of the wrong person)

If you're an illegal alien, a simple hearing to have you prove you're a US citizen or legal US resident should do.
Let me say it again.
Who needs silly little things like trials :rolleyes:

Let me say it again.
Who needs silly little things like trials :rolleyes:

Illegal aliens don't need them.

Check their papers, pack them on the bus, and take them home.

Illegal aliens don't need them.

Check their papers, pack them on the bus, and take them home.

I personally believe that they should still have the choice of claiming asylum

Illegal aliens don't need them.

Check their papers, pack them on the bus, and take them home.
Mitigating circumstances? We don't need no stinking mitigating circumstances!

What papers would they have on them? The birth certificate from their home country? What the hell are you talking about?
It's like playing Medal of Honor: "Show me your papers!" ..Then I shoot him in the face.

Bwhaha can you see all them Aussies wanting to come back to dear old Blighty?

'Naa mate, it's too bloody cold'

Do you have any idea how fucking COLD it is here? My mother's from Germany, and she says it's colder here.

Don't take it personally. Greater Trostia contracted the inucrable disease "moron" at birth, the doctors have tried everything to cure him. A real tragedy I feel; surely he has a personality under all that resentment and rabid zealotry.

The real tragedy is that, in your head, what you just said was incredibly witty and cutting.

Mitigating circumstances? We don't need no stinking mitigating circumstances!

What papers would they have on them? The birth certificate from their home country? What the hell are you talking about?
It's like playing Medal of Honor: "Show me your papers!" ..Then I shoot him in the face.

There are no mitigating circumstances for an illegal alien.

Either you have a means of proving you're a US Citizen, or you don't.

I live in Herndon, Va. When the police pull you over for any reason, they are now required to ask for proof of citizenship.

If you don't happen to have it on you, you can call someone who can bring it from your house.

If you don't have it then, or it's going to take a while, you're detained until you show it.

If, after a couple of days, you still don't have it, they call the INS, who take over and investigate whether or not you're really a US citizen or legal resident.

There are no mitigating circumstances for an illegal alien.

Either you have a means of proving you're a US Citizen, or you don't.
What if you have a child in the US who was born here so is a legal citizen? You bigots don't think beyond "omg, illegal immigrant, deport, deport!"

These criminals are among the illegal residents that would be given amnesty, if the Democrats and GWB get their way. They're also the ones we need to deport and make sure can never re-enter the country.

You're a fucking liar, and you're pathetic because you stoop to these levels to make a political argument. You make Bill O'Reilly look like a deep thinker with this kind of bullshit.

What if you have a child in the US who was born here so is a legal citizen? You bigots don't think beyond "omg, illegal immigrant, deport, deport!"

As has happened numerous times before, the child stays, the parents are deported.

As has happened numerous times before, the child stays, the parents are deported.

yes, and in some cases, the child, when turns 18, can sponsor their parents

As has happened numerous times before, the child stays, the parents are deported.

So you're getting the choice between the child being taken into care (at the cost of the taxpayer) or allowing the parents to stay and pay for the child themselves?

So you're getting the choice between the child being taken into care (at the cost of the taxpayer) or allowing the parents to stay and pay for the child themselves?

Children are put up for adoption, so in the long run the state is not paying for them.

Children are put up for adoption, so in the long run the state is not paying for them.

What are the odds of being successfully adopted and remaining with the adopted parents?

what really ticks me off is how the children become guests of the state, which drives up the taxes becasue they need more money for the welfare budget!

What are the odds of being successfully adopted and remaining with the adopted parents?

In the US, quite good, unless you're a child over the age of 12. Then you are more likely to be in foster care (non-state parents care for you, but don't adopt you, and the state subsidizes it to some extent).

Younger than that age, and you get adopted rather quickly.

Children are put up for adoption, so in the long run the state is not paying for them.
And I piss sunshine.

I think you understand perfectly. The provisions in the recently considered legislation would have inadvertently allowed convicted criminals to gain legal residency.

Inadvertently.. whatever. There are convicted criminals with legal residency that were born here, right? There are rapists that can't be deported, because this is their land, right?

The 'provisions' in the 'recently considered legislation' would have granted no SPECIAL amnesty to rapists, or anyone guilty of any crime.

Sure - you could argue that they are ALL guilty of the 'crime' of being illegal immigrants, but that's the funny thing about making their status legal - bam, not a crime anymore.

I think Myrminidonisia confused "amnesty" with "immunity," or at least assumed it was overreaching amnesty :rolleyes:

If you're an illegal alien, a simple hearing to have you prove you're a US citizen or legal US resident should do.

Innocent until proven guilty... surely you'd have to PROVE that they are NOT legal residents or citizens.

Ah, no - we only allow those kinds of 'special' laws for special people who were clever enough to drop out of their mothers on THIS side of an imaginary line.

What are the odds of being successfully adopted and remaining with the adopted parents?

A more realistic question would be: What are the odds of being successfully adopted and remaining with the adopted parents, when the child is brown and speaks Spanish fluently?

Illegal aliens don't need them.

Check their papers, pack them on the bus, and take them home.

I find myself wondering if you would make exactly this same argument if you had your papers taken from you, and were driven to somewhere suspiciously near the border...

I find myself wondering if you would make exactly this same argument if you had your papers taken from you, and were driven to somewhere suspiciously near the border...

Sure would.

The police who are expected to enforce this here in Herndon are required to let you call home to provide paperwork.

I have xerox copies of my US Passport, have memorized its number, and have numerous old (out of date) passports which legally have the force of proving citizenship (you use them on your I-9 when you apply for a job).

We do this here in Herndon now.

Here's what was going on in Herndon in 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700328.html

The training is now complete, and the police are enforcing the immigration laws in Herndon.

Sure would.

The police who are expected to enforce this here in Herndon are required to let you call home to provide paperwork.

I have xerox copies of my US Passport, have memorized its number, and have numerous old (out of date) passports which legally have the force of proving citizenship (you use them on your I-9 when you apply for a job).

We do this here in Herndon now.

Yes. They do something similar in Cuba, and they also did something like that in Chile under Pinochet. I'm talking about detaining people who fail to provide their 'papers' when asked by government officers.

I'm confused why you think this is a good thing for your town. Unless you believe that a tendency towards a police state is good. I also liked the way some of your townspeople associated illegal immigration with unsafe criminals. Yes, your town sure seems like an interesting place to live. You sure got the government you deserve.

I've never actually seen the word 'neocon' used in a meaningful context.

you don't see lots of things. i think the problem might be on your end.

Yes. They do something similar in Cuba, and they also did something like that in Chile under Pinochet. I'm talking about detaining people who fail to provide their 'papers' when asked by government officers.

I'm confused why you think this is a good thing for your town. Unless you believe that a tendency towards a police state is good. I also liked the way some of your townspeople associated illegal immigration with unsafe criminals. Yes, your town sure seems like an interesting place to live. You sure got the government you deserve.

Low crime, perfect real estate, good prices and lower than low unemployment...

You can already be detained for not showing the police your driver's license or some form of identification, anywhere in the US.

Got it?

I'm confused why you think this is a good thing for your town. Unless you believe that a tendency towards a police state is good.

the ro collective either actively desires a police state or pretends to while they troll the internet.

YI also liked the way some of your townspeople associated illegal immigration with unsafe criminals.

Because in Herndon, it's true.

Roughly 90% of crime in Herndon is committed by people who are illegally here.

Got it?

You can already be detained for not showing the police your driver's license or some form of identification, anywhere in the US

...while driving

Bwhaha can you see all them Aussies wanting to come back to dear old Blighty?

'Naa mate, it's too bloody cold'

Some south Tasmanians (of British descent) may not mind too much, it can get pretty cold down there (though not at the lower ranges that Britain has).

...while driving

When you're on foot, if you can't provide ID and refuse to do so, the police can arrest you.

...while driving

Actually no. They courts went pro-police state when some one brought it up in court after getting arrested for not having ID on him strolling around. Police have the right to demand ID and arrest you if you withhold it. It's bullshit but it's 'legal'.

You can already be detained for not showing the police your driver's license or some form of identification, anywhere in the US.

I don't believe you.

Actually no. They courts went pro-police state when some one brought it up in court after getting arrested for not having ID on him strolling around. Police have the right to demand ID and arrest you if you withhold it. It's bullshit but it's 'legal'.

when the hell did this happen? and how was there not rioting in the streets?

when the hell did this happen? and how was there not rioting in the streets?
Couple years ago. And no one rioted because everyone is pro-police state to protect us from teh eb1l Muslims and immigrants.

Here's what was going on in Herndon in 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700328.html

The training is now complete, and the police are enforcing the immigration laws in Herndon.

Congratulations. You're reinvented the sundown town.

I don't believe you.

Leave Montreal.

Go to a local police station in the US, and ask them.

The actions of a criminal-minded individual, such as this fail to reflect the true nature of the illegal migrants. While the migrants may be in America illegally, they are likely already law-abiding citizens. In many cases, some probably came on visas and have very little money and when the visa expired were unable to get back so they stayed and work.

They aren't all fraudulent people. They don't come to defraud the system, take advantage of welfare etc.

This argument involving the illegal migrants (immigrants if you will) reminds me of the Vietamese refugees who came to Canada by boat during the war. They were very unwelcomed at first. People claimed that these immigrants would take our jobs and ruin the economy. While I don't have the study on hand, there was one done twenty years after they arrived and it found that all the immigrants who came here had found jobs and their children had been educated. The same study found that this group of people were just thankful that they had a chance to find jobs and live their lives.

By giving these people a chance, they were able to contribute to the overall welfare of the nation.

I believe that there is a problem with illegal immigration because of "application fees", aka, headtaxes that still exist.

In Canada we have an application processing fee that is $1700 per application, and that can be steep for many families and immigrants.

People who may be skilled may not be able to afford it because the cost of living in their homeland may be significantly less and they wouldn't have the money. But they want to come but can't accord that fee.

I'm not justifying the illegal actions, I'm simply saying that the current existing obstacles are one reason why people don't try and go through the system, they try and circumvent it. The system leaves out many potentially skilled people because of bureaucratic boondoggling, red tape and fees, as well as massive backlogs.

The chief weasel sez: I agree!

I don't believe you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html

Still say that I'm making this up, eh?

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A06

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a state law that makes it a crime to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, a ruling that strengthens the ability of law enforcement officers to detain citizens even where they lack enough evidence for a full arrest.

By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that Larry Dudley Hiibel's constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable arrest and to remain silent were not violated when Deputy Lee Dove arrested him for refusing to give his name after Dove stopped Hiibel and questioned him near Winnemucca, Nev., on May 21, 2000. Hiibel was convicted of violating Nevada's "stop and identify" law and fined $250.

Hiibel and his supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, had urged the court to strike down the Nevada statute, arguing that it effectively criminalizes a citizen's silence. Advocates for the homeless had argued that laws such as Nevada's could be used to harass homeless people, who are often mentally ill or lack identification cards.

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority on that one.

Leave Montreal.

Go to a local police station in the US, and ask them.

How about you just provide a link that supports your claim?

This link (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21june20041210/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf)shows that you only have to provide identification if the police can show why it is part of an ongoing investigation or fi you are caught committing a crime.

How about you just provide a link that supports your claim?

This link (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21june20041210/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf)shows that you only have to provide identification if the police can show why it is part of an ongoing investigation or fi you are caught committing a crime.

It depends on your local laws.

If the local law says that you have to identify yourself, the Supreme Court agrees with that (see the Nevada law).

Here in Virginia, you MUST identify yourself - or go to jail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html

Still say that I'm making this up, eh?



Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority on that one.

Read your own quote.
"to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, "


In other words, the police can not stop people arbitrarliy and ask them for identification, nor can they then arrest them if they do not provide it. Your link states that the police can arrest somebody if they do not provide identification when caught committing a crime.

When you're on foot, if you can't provide ID and refuse to do so, the police can arrest you.

oh, we're talking hiibel. while that is clearly a fucking terrible decision, it doesn't actually say that at all. what it does say is that in certain fairly limited circumstances, you are required to identify yourself in some fashion. you don't need an ID, merely stating your name is acceptable.

Read your own quote.
"to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, "


In other words, the police can not stop people arbitrarliy and ask them for identification, nor can they then arrest them if they do not provide it. Your link states that the police can arrest somebody if they do not provide identification when caught committing a crime.

"Suspicious behavior" is fairly undefined.

If you are someone walking around in our neighborhood at night, you are automatically a "suspicious person" if the police don't know you.

It's not as though they need probable cause to stop you - this is a very, very light standard.

It is, in essence, arbitrary.

Illegal Invader? Feloney Conviction?

Immediate Death Penelty.

:sniper:

Solves several problems all at once, and over time, reduces several others.

when the hell did this happen? and how was there not rioting in the streets?

There was no rioting because the People do not give a shit. It didn't happen to them, so meh.

It depends on your local laws.

If the local law says that you have to identify yourself, the Supreme Court agrees with that (see the Nevada law).

Here in Virginia, you MUST identify yourself - or go to jail.

Well, Local laws have no bearing on your claim that cops can do that anywhere in the USA. Let's take it from the top, shall we? You claimed this:

You can already be detained for not showing the police your driver's license or some form of identification, anywhere in the US.

This is wrong, as proved by the link you provided.

And then there was this gem:

Roughly 90% of crime in Herndon is committed by people who are illegally here.

I don't believe you.

"Suspicious behavior" is fairly undefined.

If you are someone walking around in our neighborhood at night, you are automatically a "suspicious person" if the police don't know you.

It's not as though they need probable cause to stop you - this is a very, very light standard.

It is, in essence, arbitrary.

You could always read the case that I linked to. Now, it doesn't have pictures, and some of the words are long, so you might need a grown up to help you, but you can see that the case I linked to is very clear as to what is 'suspicious behaviour'.

Read your own quote.
"to refuse to tell the police one's name when stopped for suspicious behavior, "
Subjective to the police's interpretation. That basically means, clause irrelevant.

Well, Local laws have no bearing on your claim that cops can do that anywhere in the USA. Let's take it from the top, shall we? You claimed this:

This is wrong, as proved by the link you provided.

And then there was this gem:

I don't believe you.

As long as the locals pass a law (and many have) it's legal for the police to demand and expect ID.

And, it's true that the Supreme Court holds the police to a very, very low standard - "suspicious".

Well, that's everyone, as far as most police are concerned.

Here in Herndon, we have such a law. And here, if you didn't give your ID, you would go to jail immediately. If you were a legal US resident, you would be fined for failing to identify yourself, and if you were an illegal alien, turned over to the INS for deportation.

We have a major crime problem in Herndon, specifically at the intersection of Elden and Alabama Ave. Within a roughly 200m diameter circle, 90 percent of the crime in Herndon takes place. Nearly all committed by illegal aliens who live in the cheap housing there.

We want them gone.

Subjective to the police's interpretation. That basically means, clause irrelevant.

Basically, if you're not a policeman, you're suspicious.

Well, Local laws have no bearing on your claim that cops can do that anywhere in the USA. Let's take it from the top, shall we? You claimed this:


Supreme Court ruling. That makes it legal to do anywhere in the US.

To note: I am not defending Remote Observers/DK/whoever here, I am defending facts. Sad, sad facts.

Subjective to the police's interpretation. That basically means, clause irrelevant.

The Hiibel case, which RO and I both linked to, can be read at your leisure. You will note that Hiibel was caught in the act of committing a crime and then dared the cop to arrest him and refused to show ID. Hiibel was not arrested for not showing ID. He was arrested for obstructing justice.

You do bring up a good point, though. Your criticism is one of the reasons that many people do not support the SCOTUS opinion.

...if the Democrats and GWB get their way.

Isn't this sentence a sign of the coming apocalypse?

The Hiibel case, which RO and I both linked to, can be read at your leisure. You will note that Hiibel was caught in the act of committing a crime and then dared the cop to arrest him and refused to show ID. Hiibel was not arrested for not showing ID. He was arrested for obstructing justice.
No, he was arrested for not identifying himself as required by law.

Here in Herndon, we have such a law. And here, if you didn't give your ID, you would go to jail immediately. If you were a legal US resident, you would be fined for failing to identify yourself, and if you were an illegal alien, turned over to the INS for deportation.

We have a major crime problem in Herndon, specifically at the intersection of Elden and Alabama Ave. Within a roughly 200m diameter circle, 90 percent of the crime in Herndon takes place. Nearly all committed by illegal aliens who live in the cheap housing there.

We want them gone.

I will use short words. in some places in the USA, the cops can bust you for not having papers. Not all. You said ''all". You were wrong.

Supreme Court ruling. That makes it legal to do anywhere in the US.

To note: I am not defending Remote Observers/DK/whoever here, I am defending facts. Sad, sad facts.

That's okay. You seem to be worth talking to.

While the SCOTUS supported the Nevada police, making it legal there, it does not immediately apply to other places. Each locality would have to enact its own laws. If every locality in the USA did this, then RO would be correct. But until then, local laws could just as easily prohibit such behaviour by police officers.

As long as the locals pass a law (and many have) it's legal for the police to demand and expect ID.

And, it's true that the Supreme Court holds the police to a very, very low standard - "suspicious".

Well, that's everyone, as far as most police are concerned.

Here in Herndon, we have such a law. And here, if you didn't give your ID, you would go to jail immediately. If you were a legal US resident, you would be fined for failing to identify yourself, and if you were an illegal alien, turned over to the INS for deportation.

We have a major crime problem in Herndon, specifically at the intersection of Elden and Alabama Ave. Within a roughly 200m diameter circle, 90 percent of the crime in Herndon takes place. Nearly all committed by illegal aliens who live in the cheap housing there.

We want them gone.

Well, your town sounds like a lovely bunch of racists and fascists.

While the SCOTUS supported the Nevada police, making it legal there, it does not immediately apply to other places. Each locality would have to enact its own laws. If every locality in the USA did this, then RO would be correct. But until then, local laws could just as easily prohibit such behaviour by police officers.
Unless laws are made to specifically say police can't bring a person in for refusing to show them an ID, it is their discretion, and legally supported by this case if they have reason to believe the person is acting suspiciously.

No, he was arrested for not identifying himself as required by law.

From page five:

Hiibel was chaged with "willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office." (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21june20041210/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf)

Near the middle of the second paragraph.

We are both correct, as his refusal to provide identification obstructed the duties of the officer at the time.

From page five:

Hiibel was chaged with "willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office." (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21june20041210/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf)

Near the middle of the second paragraph.

We are both correct, as his refusal to provide identification obstructed the duties of the officer at the time.
And it was specifically against the law... it was an offense in and of itself.

Well, your town sounds like a lovely bunch of racists and fascists.

Like I said, they've reinvented the sundown town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town), only this time the signs are in Spanish.

Like I said, they've reinvented the sundown town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town), only this time the signs are in Spanish.

Well that's just wonderful.

And it was specifically against the law... it was an offense in and of itself.

You didn't read the link, did you?

Well that's just wonderful.

On the plus side, this sort of retarded hostility means that the Hispanic vote, which is the fastest growing segment of the legal population in the US, is becoming even more and more entrenched with what passes for the left in the US.

On the plus side, this sort of retarded hostility means that the Hispanic vote, which is the fastest growing segment of the legal population in the US, is becoming even more and more entrenched with what passes for the left in the US.

I did read something about that the other day.

On the plus side, this sort of retarded hostility means that the Hispanic vote, which is the fastest growing segment of the legal population in the US, is becoming even more and more entrenched with what passes for the left in the US.

Now the next question is, what percentage of the Hispanic vote votes? Historically, it's been low even in highly contested elections.

Villa has been arrested 11 previous times in Maury County.

Wtf?? Do these cops not run background checks?

Sure would.

The police who are expected to enforce this here in Herndon are required to let you call home to provide paperwork.

I have xerox copies of my US Passport, have memorized its number, and have numerous old (out of date) passports which legally have the force of proving citizenship (you use them on your I-9 when you apply for a job).

We do this here in Herndon now.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Well, not your friend, maybe.

Twice in your response you mention 'Herndon'. I don't recall mentioning some backwater hick town, I specified dropping you by the border. Thus - what your local militia might do is totally, utterly, completely and quintessentially irrelevent, yes?

If you had your papers (and, for the sake of argument, acces to papers) obstructed in some way, and were being approached by border patrol... would you be making the same arguments you make when it's some other poor soul?

I doubt it.

That's why you shouldn't vote Republican in November. Bush is not the President of the American people. He's the President of the illegal alien nation. He's here to do their bidding.

(eh, sarcasm?)

It's not racism to demand that everyone who comes to the US obeys US laws.

It's not racism to demand that everyone who comes to the US obeys US laws.

No, but the overt racism of many in the anti immigration groups is obvious to any one with eyes. When they talk about closing the borders, many of them mean only closing the southern one. White Europeans want to come in? That's fine, but keep the damn darkies out!

The problem with illegal immigration is that there isn't an easy solution. Illegals do so much work in this country, work that companies don't see the need to pay Americans better wages to do, that simply deporting them would cause serious economic repercussions. Closing the Mexican border? Don't make me laugh. It's just not possible. So, we need a way for people who have been living and working and raising families in this country to become legal, a way to increase border security, and a way to sort the bad immigrants out from the good. And no one in Washington is going to do it because it would require compromise and working across the isles. Ain't politics fun?

I'm against jailing them here. We have enough of our own legal resident violent felons with nothing to lose-we dont need to deal with our neighbor's trash too.

Arrest them. Fingerprint,photograph and take a DNA sample. Turn them over to authorities in their home country with full detailed report,evidence.
Let them house and "rehabilitate" as they see fit.

Ah, but if we just send them home, there's no punishment and deterrent.
Put 'em on a chain gang for a few years and then send them home.

No, but the overt racism of many in the anti immigration groups is obvious to any one with eyes. When they talk about closing the borders, many of them mean only closing the southern one. White Europeans want to come in? That's fine, but keep the damn darkies out!

The problem with illegal immigration is that there isn't an easy solution. Illegals do so much work in this country, work that companies don't see the need to pay Americans better wages to do, that simply deporting them would cause serious economic repercussions. Closing the Mexican border? Don't make me laugh. It's just not possible. So, we need a way for people who have been living and working and raising families in this country to become legal, a way to increase border security, and a way to sort the bad immigrants out from the good. And no one in Washington is going to do it because it would require compromise and working across the isles. Ain't politics fun?
Actually they are talking about closing the Canadian border because Arab terrorists have, in the past (note the guy caught in Seattle), been entering the US from Canada.
There is nothing racist in that. It's about US national security. The Aztecs never owned North America, the Cherokee Indians owned it.
The Sioux owned it. The Iroqouis owned it. The Athapascans owned it.

Mexicans do not have a valid right to enter the US without US permission.
Neither do Arabs or asians or anyone else for that matter.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says that any person or ethnic group has a constitutional right to enter the US.

I suppose you think the Minutemen are all racist just because they want border laws enforced. Despite the fact they are the most humanitarian of the anti immigrant crowd. Heck they even paid over $10,000 to get a permit to protest in LA and they were arrested for protesting illegal immigration. In the meantime you have violent illegal alien gangs going around murdering US citizens and killings cops.
You have this Villa guy who is an illegal immigrant, was released, went and raped a 12 year and got away with it. Just because Californians don't want to arrest illegals. If it was white person who did any of those crimes he'd in be in prison for 80 years.

So you're right there is racism involved. Reverse racism.

Lets face it, the US police just doesn't have the equipment and funding the FBI does, else they would be several times more effective in these kinds of situations.

They do, but police departments in different cities and counties don't communicate well with each other -- what makes you think they would be able to do it state-to-state?

Never did I suggest deporting law-abiding illegal residents.No but (regardless of whether he actually raped or not) this story is going to get other (non-rapist) Mexicans deported.

in the short run (http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070704/NEWS01/707040427/1006/NEWS)

and i the Long run.. as the LouDobbs/O-relly/etc use this story to build up hate against all brown skinned migrants.

So you're right there is racism involved. Reverse racism.

Get a grip and re read my post. I'm not for illegal immigration, I'm for a rational solution that will at least attempt to satisfy all parties. Here's the deal: We have to find a way to simultaneously help people whose only crime (while still a crime) was to enter the US illegally, who have worked hard, paid taxes (yes, sales tax is a tax. Duh.), are raising families, and design an immigration plan that will help people enter legally to do jobs that Americans won't do for the wages being offered. If companies offered American kids more than what they could make at the local stop'n'rob to pick berries, many would jump on the opportunity.

Let's talk about racism. How about all the people screaming about how those people refuse to learn English (bullshit. ESL classes are full across the country), how those people don't value education, how they can't send their lily white children to schools with those kids. They should take a step back and realize that editorials were screaming the exact same fucking thing about the Irish, and the Italians, and just about every other major migration to America. I don't care about the Minutemen, except for the fact that they wouldn't be bitching nearly as much if it were white French Canadians sneaking across the northern border, I suspect.

Actually they are talking about closing the Canadian border because Arab terrorists have, in the past (note the guy caught in Seattle), been entering the US from Canada.
There is nothing racist in that. It's about US national security. The Aztecs never owned North America, the Cherokee Indians owned it.
The Sioux owned it. The Iroqouis owned it. The Athapascans owned it.

So, by your logic, we're all illegal aliens (excepting full-blooded Native/First Nations) and the Tribes should be able to deport us to our countries of origin (or nearest equivalent) without consulting them? Lord and Lady, England would be over run! Not to mention Ireland...

Actually no. They courts went pro-police state when some one brought it up in court after getting arrested for not having ID on him strolling around. Police have the right to demand ID and arrest you if you withhold it. It's bullshit but it's 'legal'.

Sounds eerily similar to apartheid-era South Africa's pass laws.

Sounds eerily similar to apartheid-era South Africa's pass laws.

It does, doesn't it?

It does, doesn't it?

Yes. Not a pretty thought. :(

Get a grip and re read my post. I'm not for illegal immigration, I'm for a rational solution that will at least attempt to satisfy all parties. Here's the deal: We have to find a way to simultaneously help people whose only crime (while still a crime) was to enter the US illegally, who have worked hard, paid taxes (yes, sales tax is a tax. Duh.), are raising families, and design an immigration plan that will help people enter legally to do jobs that Americans won't do for the wages being offered. If companies offered American kids more than what they could make at the local stop'n'rob to pick berries, many would jump on the opportunity.

Let's talk about racism. How about all the people screaming about how those people refuse to learn English (bullshit. ESL classes are full across the country), how those people don't value education, how they can't send their lily white children to schools with those kids. They should take a step back and realize that editorials were screaming the exact same fucking thing about the Irish, and the Italians, and just about every other major migration to America. I don't care about the Minutemen, except for the fact that they wouldn't be bitching nearly as much if it were white French Canadians sneaking across the northern border, I suspect.

The issue is that they shouldn't be allowed citizenship unless they've learned English. But that is already the law. And it applies to everyone, not just Mexicans.
The thing with the Mexicans is that they think they should be exempt from everything. Yeah they want the Arabs to go through background checks. They agree that Asians should go through them. But then they want Mexicans themselves to be exempt.

The problem is not that they are here illegally. Illegal border crossing is a minor crime. The problem is that some of them aren't content with just being here illegally. They have rape, murder, steal, and vandalize people's property. That's why Mexicans must be subject to criminal background checks along with everyone else coming to the US.
That's the way it has to be because of 911.

That French Canadian also needs to go through criminal background checks and the fact is that if he committs a rape, he is deported. Unlike Mexican illegals who are just let go, even after raping people.

As for employment, the reason they hire illegals is that they can get away with paying illegal wages. The illegals can't complain cause if they do the employers will have them jailed and deported. It's called blackmail.
That's why part of the immigration reform bill would have that a felony. It would have allowed the immigrants to sue the employer and would have protected them from backlash. The employers in such cases would have had to pay a fine and serve jail time. But that's now mute since the bill was sunk by crazies.

So, by your logic, we're all illegal aliens (excepting full-blooded Native/First Nations) and the Tribes should be able to deport us to our countries of origin (or nearest equivalent) without consulting them? Lord and Lady, England would be over run! Not to mention Ireland...

sure, if you can quote the immigration laws that were in effect when those that broke the law actually did the act of breaking it.

oh and remember, how many amnesties were granted between then and now...

and don't forget, alot of those immigrants did follow the immigration laws that were in place at the time they came to this country.

Oh, and EDIT: I am not for deporting ALL immigrants, just those that came in illegally, no matter where their Nation of origin was. I will accept amnesty, but would preferre that those attempting to go though the process be rewarded before those that didn't.

So, by your logic, we're all illegal aliens (excepting full-blooded Native/First Nations) and the Tribes should be able to deport us to our countries of origin (or nearest equivalent) without consulting them? Lord and Lady, England would be over run! Not to mention Ireland...

Yes, my people should have the right to kick all of you white and mexican people.

We owned this continent long before either of you two peoples showed up.

We want back that which rightfully is ours.

Yes, my people should have the right to kick all of you white and mexican people.

We owned this continent long before either of you two peoples showed up.

We want back that which rightfully is ours.

Are you full blooded native?

And you do realise that if you sent all those people home then the country would be in a hell of a lot of trouble

Yes, my people should have the right to kick all of you white and mexican people.

We owned this continent long before either of you two peoples showed up.

We want back that which rightfully is ours.what tribe are you?

Are you full blooded native?

And you do realise that if you sent all those people home then the country would be in a hell of a lot of trouble

As would deporting all illegal immigrants...

And you do realise that if you sent all those people home then the country would be in a hell of a lot of troubleyeah but sending them to their mother-lands is a sure way to reduce the number of rapes in America. or at lest thats how LouDobbs and O-relly racist minds work.
;)

yeah but sending them to their mother-lands is a sure way to reduce the number of rapes in America. At lest thats how LouDobbs and O-relly minds work.
;)

And a sure way to kill the living standard of the middle/upper class white voters.

And a sure way to kill the living standard of the middle/upper class white voters.that post (#194) is a hyper complicated/sophisticated double sarcasm- clusterfucker multiple target bomb..

my advice is "handle with care, read slowly.. good luck" :D

The issue is that they shouldn't be allowed citizenship unless they've learned English. But that is already the law. And it applies to everyone, not just Mexicans.
The thing with the Mexicans is that they think they should be exempt from everything. Yeah they want the Arabs to go through background checks. They agree that Asians should go through them. But then they want Mexicans themselves to be exempt.

The problem is not that they are here illegally. Illegal border crossing is a minor crime. The problem is that some of them aren't content with just being here illegally. They have rape, murder, steal, and vandalize people's property. That's why Mexicans must be subject to criminal background checks along with everyone else coming to the US.
That's the way it has to be because of 911.

That French Canadian also needs to go through criminal background checks and the fact is that if he committs a rape, he is deported. Unlike Mexican illegals who are just let go, even after raping people.

As for employment, the reason they hire illegals is that they can get away with paying illegal wages. The illegals can't complain cause if they do the employers will have them jailed and deported. It's called blackmail.
That's why part of the immigration reform bill would have that a felony. It would have allowed the immigrants to sue the employer and would have protected them from backlash. The employers in such cases would have had to pay a fine and serve jail time. But that's now mute since the bill was sunk by crazies.

Er... who the hell is proclaiming that we allow citizenship to murderers/rapists/etc? Oh, that's right, no one. At all. Period. Ad infinitum.

Hell, even the "amnesty"(Which is not really what it is) doesn't do that. No one is saying that. No one is asking for special treatment for them.

Simply put, all anyone is claiming, at all, is that normal law abiding people, whose only crime is illegally crossing a line, whom have worked very hard in America, are not treated as the scum of the earth, and being equated to murders/rapists/etc., and actually given a flying chance of working legally.

Somehow, to me at least, crossing a line is not nearly as bad as murdering or raping someone.

that post (#194) is a hyper complicated/sophisticated double sarcasm- clusterfucker multiple target bomb..

my advice is "handle with care, read slowly.. good luck" :D

... I'll call the Bomb squad.




... from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over there! :p

Illegals should be put on an island somewhere to be processed, basically in quarantine, their health, mental, emotional and physical status can be checked.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

Awesome, I'd get to stay :D

Originally Posted by Ahkourlis
I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.


Wow, America gets given back to the Indians then.

Originally Posted by Ahkourlis
I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.


Wow, America gets given back to the Indians then.BINGO!
EDIT: unexceptionally slow,but BINGO nevertheless

Originally Posted by Ahkourlis
I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.


Wow, America gets given back to the Indians then.

one exception.

Hawaii is given back to the Hawaiians.

Illegals should be put on an island somewhere to be processed, basically in quarantine, their health, mental, emotional and physical status can be checked.

Like Ellis Island....

It would be far more effective to have him serve that sentence in his home country, but there's not much chance of that happening. I'd rather not put illegal residents in our prisons anymore that I want to give them access to our other governmental services.

Why not simply reform the prison system to include hard labor for violent crimes be they illegals or otherwise? Might as well get some use out of them.

People actually born here should stay. Those who are not, should go.

I don't care who they related too. If they can find a good job or make a positive contribution to society they have no right to be here.
And while they may not be raping or murdering, the common illegal immigrant custom of not refusing to help police apprehend rapists, murders, and pedophiles is most certainly not making a positive contribution. It's a negative contribution, it encourages people to committ such crimes cause it says if you do it, then people won't turn you in.
If you know someone murdered or raped or molested and you don't help bring them in, that makes you a felon because you are an accomplice to a felony.
That should be enough to deport people.

You're a fucking liar, and you're pathetic because you stoop to these levels to make a political argument. You make Bill O'Reilly look like a deep thinker with this kind of bullshit.

Nazz, you are exposed as the partisan hack that you are ...

Amnesty benefits do not wait for the “enforcement trigger.” After filing an application and waiting 24 hours, illegal aliens will receive full “probationary benefits,” complete with the ability to legally live and work in the U.S., travel outside of the U.S. and return, and their own social security card. Astonishingly, if the trigger is never met and amnesty applications are therefore never “approved,” the probationary benefits granted to the illegal alien population never expire, and the new social security cards issued to the illegal alien population are not revoked. [See pp. 1, 290-291, & 315].

Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (Last year's bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien's background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].

Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]

Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].

I've done my due diligence on the facts, it your turn to prove your not the fool you seem to be. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Yes, my people should have the right to kick all of you white and mexican people.

even though mexicans are largely intermixed indigenous themselves?

one exception.

Hawaii is given back to the Hawaiians.

i havent heard anything recently - the akaka bill going anywhere these days?

even though mexicans are largely intermixed indigenous themselves?

Not to mention, many white and black Americans have Native American ancestry.

Not to mention, many white and black Americans have Native American ancestry.

true, though black more than white, and not to nearly the same extent as in latin america

true, though black more than white, and not to nearly the same extent as in latin america

True.

even though mexicans are largely intermixed indigenous themselves?

Mexicans are spaniards mixed with Aztecs and Mixtecs.

Mexicans are not whites mixed with Cherokee. They are not whites mixed Apache.

Neither of the ancestral races of the Mexicans (spaniards and Aztecs) owned a peice of what is now the Continental USA.

Not to mention, many white and black Americans have Native American ancestry.

Let them prove it. Just about all the tribes have an office that traces ancestry.
I found out, a year ago, that it is not enough to claim to be of Native American descent. You have to be able to prove it.
This is done through geneology. I found out I was Cherokee cause my sisters did the research. And my nephew did his own research and found out the Cherokee had an empire that covered half of the current continental US (eastern half) before that loony spaniard came along spreading his diseases (with the lame excuse of looking for fountain of youth) and wiping most of the Cherokee and other North American Tribes.

This empire was more cultured than what the Aztec had. But unlike the Aztec, there was no human sacrifices. Well, that's what they told me.

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.

Bah! I can only trace mine back to the early 1600's :(

Let them prove it. Just about all the tribes have an office that traces ancestry.
I found out, a year ago, that it is not enough to claim to be of Native American descent. You have to be able to prove it.
This is done through geneology. I found out I was Cherokee cause my sisters did the research. And my nephew did his own research and found out the Cherokee had an empire that covered half of the current continental US (eastern half) before that loony spaniard came along spreading his diseases (with the lame excuse of looking for fountain of youth) and wiping most of the Cherokee and other North American Tribes.

This empire was more cultured than what the Aztec had. But unlike the Aztec, there was no human sacrifices. Well, that's what they told me.

Geneology proves dick. Ever hear the saying "momma's baby, daddy's, maybe"? All geneology can prove is who an ancestor says was the father. If you want proof, better get out the swab and send in a DNA sample, but be prepared for a surprise. Your Cherokee might be legit, but it also might be someone who was black and passed.

by all means, let's extrodinarily render bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rove, et al, posthaste.

we've got a governer in california who wasn't born in the u.s. too!

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

I agree ALL IMMIGRANTS(those who can't trace their ancestry in this country back past 60 generations) should be sent back where they belong.60 generations? 1 generation is roughly 20 years, so 60 generations would be 1200 years. So everyone who cannot trace back a lineage to 807 should immediately leave the US??

OK, I agree.

I hope you're being sarcastic.
That, or don't mind inbreeding.You consider Native Americans to be inbred?

Let them prove it. Just about all the tribes have an office that traces ancestry.
I found out, a year ago, that it is not enough to claim to be of Native American descent. You have to be able to prove it.
This is done through geneology. I found out I was Cherokee cause my sisters did the research. And my nephew did his own research and found out the Cherokee had an empire that covered half of the current continental US (eastern half) before that loony spaniard came along spreading his diseases (with the lame excuse of looking for fountain of youth) and wiping most of the Cherokee and other North American Tribes.

This empire was more cultured than what the Aztec had. But unlike the Aztec, there was no human sacrifices. Well, that's what they told me.

So you aren't full blooded Cherokee then?

Illegals should be put on an island somewhere to be processed, basically in quarantine, their health, mental, emotional and physical status can be checked.
Considering the mess that the US continues to cause in the world, such a treatment should in fact be applied to all US citizens, too.

by all means, let's extrodinarily render bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rove, et al, posthaste.

we've got a governer in california who wasn't born in the u.s. too!

=^^=
.../\...Terminator wasn't born in Hollywood? :eek:

As has happened numerous times before, the child stays, the parents are deported.it inhumane.
the child has rights, he should be able to keep his parents here.

why wait until he is 18 ???
He is going to bring them here at 18 anyways.. why separate a child from his parents? specially if they are going to come anyways.

People actually born here should stay. Those who are not, should go.

I don't care who they related too. If they can find a good job or make a positive contribution to society they have no right to be here.
And while they may not be raping or murdering, the common illegal immigrant custom of not refusing to help police apprehend rapists, murders, and pedophiles is most certainly not making a positive contribution. It's a negative contribution, it encourages people to committ such crimes cause it says if you do it, then people won't turn you in.
If you know someone murdered or raped or molested and you don't help bring them in, that makes you a felon because you are an accomplice to a felony.
That should be enough to deport people.

Why should being born here make a difference? What about a baby that is born somewhere else... but was gestated partially in the US.

Why should the geography that happens to surround you when you 'drop out' make a difference to where you are allowed to live, and what 'rights' you get?

I think they should do an extensive series of tests... and kick out ANYBODY who doesn't pass them, no matter what colour they are or where they are 'from'.

Why should being born here make a difference? What about a baby that is born somewhere else... but was gestated partially in the US.

Why should the geography that happens to surround you when you 'drop out' make a difference to where you are allowed to live, and what 'rights' you get?

I think they should do an extensive series of tests... and kick out ANYBODY who doesn't pass them, no matter what colour they are or where they are 'from'.

Kick them where?

Kick them where?

Don't care. Out.

Give them boats.

Don't care. Out.

Give them boats.

The idea of a fleet consisting of the scum of the Earth doesn't appeal to me. Mostly because they might end up here

The idea of a fleet consisting of the scum of the Earth doesn't appeal to me. Mostly because they might end up here

The idea seems to be that some deserve to be 'here' more than others. The point at which mommy's vagina stops being a barrier seems like a peculiarly arbitrary measure to me.

If America is supposed to be about anyone who puts their mind to it being able to succeed, fine - let's make it a meritocracy. And base 'right to remain' on the ability to prove your right.


I'm willing to bet that a lot of those people who shit their pants about tanned skins crossing the border would sing a very different song if THEY had to prove themselves worthy of remianing in the country.

i havent heard anything recently - the akaka bill going anywhere these days?

mixed reactions here. some are against it, saying it's an empty bill. others are for it.

The idea seems to be that some deserve to be 'here' more than others. The point at which mommy's vagina stops being a barrier seems like a peculiarly arbitrary measure to me.

If America is supposed to be about anyone who puts their mind to it being able to succeed, fine - let's make it a meritocracy. And base 'right to remain' on the ability to prove your right.


I'm willing to bet that a lot of those people who shit their pants about tanned skins crossing the border would sing a very different song if THEY had to prove themselves worthy of remianing in the country.

However it's an impossible system to use since no other country is going to take them so the only option is to kill them or form an underclass with no voting rights, etc

However it's an impossible system to use since no other country is going to take them so the only option is to kill them or form an underclass with no voting rights, etc

Or use them as slave labour.

Or use them as slave labour.

Which you like the idea of? or is it "Fuck morals" again?

However it's an impossible system to use since no other country is going to take them so the only option is to kill them or form an underclass with no voting rights, etc

*cough*soylant green*cough*

Or use them as slave labour.

we do already use them for practically slave labor, I can go down the mainstreet of my town and hire a bunch of illegals for like a five dollars per person for a day, to mow my lawn and do a bunch if other yard work.
But I would never do that kind of thing, as I am highly opposed to illegal imigration

we do already use them for practically slave labor, I can go down the mainstreet of my town and hire a bunch of illegals for like a five dollars per person for a day, to mow my lawn and do a bunch if other yard work.
But I would never do that kind of thing, as I am highly opposed to illegal imigration
Same here. I've asked every landscape contractor that I've interviewed if he would guarantee that he hired no illegal labor. Out of five, only three responded and only one positively. I hired him and it cost a bundle. But only slightly more than the others...

And my nephew did his own research and found out the Cherokee had an empire that covered half of the current continental US (eastern half) before that loony spaniard came along spreading his diseases (with the lame excuse of looking for fountain of youth) and wiping most of the Cherokee and other North American Tribes.

This empire was more cultured than what the Aztec had. But unlike the Aztec, there was no human sacrifices. Well, that's what they told me.

on what evidence are you claiming mississippian and/or hopewell culture for the cherokee?

Genetic testing is a mirage. You can be white and have only whites in your family going back 50 generations and still come up as being positively African American on a genetics test. You can be black and the genetics test will say you are positively 100% white. Yes, that has happened and the equipment they used was not faulty. They even redid the tests and came up with the same results.

You have to go by lineage which at this point can only be proven by records of geneology.

Genetic testing is a mirage. You can be white and have only whites in your family going back 50 generations and still come up as being positively African American on a genetics test. You can be black and the genetics test will say you are positively 100% white. Yes, that has happened and the equipment they used was not faulty. They even redid the tests and came up with the same results.

You have to go by lineage which at this point can only be proven by records of geneology.

I'm desperate to know. Are you full blooded native american?

Genetic testing is a mirage. You can be white and have only whites in your family going back 50 generations and still come up as being positively African American on a genetics test. You can be black and the genetics test will say you are positively 100% white. Yes, that has happened and the equipment they used was not faulty. They even redid the tests and came up with the same results.

You have to go by lineage which at this point can only be proven by records of geneology.

You have any proof that genetic testing is so flawed?

on what evidence are you claiming mississippian and/or hopewell culture for the cherokee?

I believe those were both before the Cherokee. As the Hopewell had collapsed around 500 AD. The Cherokees were still around when De Soto showed up centuries later.

The Cherokee originated in what is now Ohio and were originally part of the Iroqouise Confederacy. But they got into a war against the Delaware and we're winning but due to the Iroqious joining forces with the Delaware, they lost the war and were forced to move off the land.

Their enemies, the Delaware kept hounding them until they reached what is now Georgia.
The rivalry goes back to when the Delaware were expanding their own empire from the American northeast coast. They were taking over everything and the only thing that stopped them was the Cherokee, who were taller and more powerful. The Delaware were only able to conquer Cherokee land when they bribed the Iroquois into helping them.

According to the Delaware, the Cherokee they encountered in Ohio "had large earthen forts and fought so well that the Delaware latersought the help of the ‘Mengwe” or Iroquois, which without, the battle would have been lost."

The Cherokee had this area up until their defeat sometime around 1540 ( which kind of marrs their claim to have ownership of Georgia land since perpetuity).


"Today’s ethnolists state that “the Cherokees were once a powerful detached tribe of the Iroquoian family”

"Heckewelder wrote of several great earthen mounds built by the Tallegwis for defense against their enemies, the Iroquois and the Delaware. He also mentioned two such mounds which were found in the vicinity of what is now Sandusky, Ohio. Under these mounds, remains and artifacts were found by the hundreds and these artifacts matched the style, colors and decorations which were believed to be Tallegwis. When reenforced by archaeological and linguistic data, this ancient Delaware tradition about the Cherokees gains momentous impact. Archaeologists have discovered Indian burial mounds in Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, and Tennessee, presumably built by the Tallegwis or ancient Cherokees en route to the Alleghenies. In the center and at the base of these mounds were found pipes similar to the ones used in later era by southern Allegheny Cherokees. Imbedded in layers of earth from their base to apex were found fragments of charred crematory posts similar to those of southern Allegheny Cherokees. Set in hard clay saucer-like depressions, these post fragments were accompanied by artifacts and residue of bones thought to have belonged to the Tallewi or ancient Cherokees, the builders of these mounds"

"According to DeSotos’ four croniclers noted in the book,“The Cherokees” by Grace Steele Woodward , she describes the Cherokees being found by DeSoto on the Tennessee River in 1540"



"that brings us to Indiana. Ancient Indian burial mounds use to be in St. Joseph County, Indiana, in the areas of Lydick and the “Chain of Lakes,” and in Bremen, Indiana in neighboring Marshal County at “Lake of the Woods.” These small earthen mounds stood before the building of the homes in the early 1900's, around both lakes. Now these mounds are gone but it is highly possible that these mounds were the burial mounds of our ancestors. Others however would argue that they would have been the mounds that were built by the Miami or Potawatomi Indians who occupied these areas of land in the 1500's. But if the migration periods are correct, the Cherokee could have passed through this area one hundred years before the coming of any other tribes. So the old earthen mounds could have been made by our Cherokee ancestors."

Out of the mouths of the Cherokees themselves. http://www.skyenet.net/~myersdk/origins.html


Skynet??? Wasn't that the computer that blew up the world in the last terminator movie?

I believe those were both before the Cherokee.

yeah, but they were the big empires.

True but they didn't exist at the time of the Aztecs, their MesoAmerican contempories would have been the folks who built Teotihuacan, rather than the people who built Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital which was built after both the Hopewell and the Teotihuacan people dissappeared). However the Cherokee and the Aztecs would have been contemporaries.

However, it should be conceded that the Hopewell would have been the biggest civilization in the Western Hemisphere.

This map of Cherokee territory, gives us the Cherokee territory after their war against the Iroquois/Delaware alliance in which they were forced to give up what is today Ohio and Indiana. It is believed that their domain may have included Illinoise.

The Cherokee are recorded to have attacked enemies as far away as Arkansas where they attacked a tribe of Osage. Also, when the white came, the Cherokees had two major wars.
The first war was against the Creek tribes who outnumbered the Cherokee 5 to 1. The Creek attacked the Cherokee line in Georgia 5 consecutive times and could not break the Cherokee ranks. Finally they were able to kill the Cherokee chief thinking that would defeat them.
Instead, the chief's wife, who was a young teenage girl, probably only 15 or 16, lead the entire Cherokee nation into battle and totally routed and humiliated the Creek who were forced to sign a treaty giving all of their lands in the area to the Cherokee. These lands are areas that are now part of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.

The Cherokee war machine was a considerable force. The warriors used bows that were the same size as the men who carried them and had a maximum lethal range of 150 to 160 yards for their time. Compared to 60 yards for most other tribes.

The next major was with the British who learned just how powerful the Cherokee were. The British relied on their guns and on superior numbers like the Creek before them. During the war, the Cherokee were able to capture a lot of British forts. The British had to send 5 armies after another consecutively, just to defeat the Cherokee.
The problem was that the guns the Brits had, had a very small accuracy range compared to the weapons of the Cherokee. Not just that but the Cherokee also had a brilliant strategy. You see, unlike other tribes, they wouldn't shoot at you from far away. But they would wait until you got as close as 100 yards before unleashing their rain of arrows on your forces. Because they were accurate bowsman and the Cherokee Long Bow had a high rate of fire, this enabled them to wipe out very large numbers of the enemy. When they were done unleashing the shower of arrows, the Cherokees would run screaming at the surviving Brits and... kill or mame them so that they would no longer be a threat. Hence the only way the British could defeat the Cherokee was by destroying their food supply by burning the agricultural fields and graineries. This tactic would have caused the Cherokee to starve to death if they did not surrender. So the Cherokee signed a peace agreement with the Brits.
I think the ratio was somewhere around 10 Brits for every 1 Cherokee killed.

Given that the Aztecs could not stand up to the Spanish and the Spanish had the same tech as the Brits, and the Cherokee beat the Brits, it is conjecturable that the Cherokee would have devastated the Aztecs in any war between the two. Particularly since the Aztecs relied mostly on close quarters combat and altlats which only had a range of 300 feet compared with a maximum of 480 feet for the long bow.

Yes illegal immigration is a problem but this little verse also pops up in my mind. Okay I don;t agree with the whole amnesty thing but I don't think illegal immigrants should all be lumped as job stealing benefit fraud monsters.Except most of us descend from LEGAL immigrants. Note the less-than-subtle difference.

I need to correct myself. Apparently there is a dispute as to whether the Cherokee and the Mississipians were the same or that the Cherokee were possibly the children of the Mississippians.

It is believed that the Cherokees were the same as or directly descended from the Mississippians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

"Mississippian peoples were almost certainly ancestral to the majority of the Native American tribes living in this region in the historic era. The historic and modern day Native American tribes believed to have participated in the overarching Mississippian Culture include, among others too numerous to name: the Alabama, Apalachee, Caddo, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Guale, Hitchiti, Houma, Illinois, Kansa, Miami, Missouri, Natchez, Osage Nation, Quapaw, Seminole, Shawnee, Timucua, Tunica-Biloxi, Yamasee, and Yuchi."

I was wondering about all of the neo/new malarky. It's like a new label to hide the same shit behind. Why not just call Conservatives, Conservatives? What next neo-facists?

It's to distinguish them from the paleoconservatives. There's a slight difference in ideology. For starters, neoconservatives don't have Pat Buchanan as one of their more moderate subscribers.

However it's an impossible system to use since no other country is going to take them so the only option is to kill them or form an underclass with no voting rights, etc

How is it an impossible system?

I don't care if anyone else wants them - let them float around on their little boats forever.

I'm sure, sooner or later, someone would find a use for them.

How is it an impossible system?

I don't care if anyone else wants them - let them float around on their little boats forever.

I'm sure, sooner or later, someone would find a use for them.

Ok i'll correct that to "impossible if you want to maintain an ethical standpoint". That and the fact that people would fight back

Ok i'll correct that to "impossible if you want to maintain an ethical standpoint". That and the fact that people would fight back

I don't think it's any less 'ethical' than these arguments being made based on where you were lucky/unlucky enough to be something as arbitrary as 'born'.

At least my model let's you 'earn' the right to belong.

Why should we let mindless bigots stay here just because they jumped the mommy divide this side of the border?

I don't think it's any less 'ethical' than these arguments being made based on where you were lucky/unlucky enough to be something as arbitrary as 'born'.

At least my model let's you 'earn' the right to belong.

Why should we let mindless bigots stay here just because they jumped the mommy divide this side of the border?

One method is leaving things up to chance and the other is human interference. The problem lies in the subjectivity of who you would consider has earned the right to live in your nation.

I think meritocratic method is fairer than native geography... no?

No because of the subjectivity problem for one.