Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shocking innit? All the libwals against the illegals,, kick em to the curb now that you bought their votes..
thats just retarded. I was clear regarding my opinion against rationalized illegal aliens loooooong before the last election. and I'm so fucking liberal that reading this post probably made your vagina pucker.
Shogun, you take this way tooooo personally. Take a chill pill, dude. Whats with all the name calling???
ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998
Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.
If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.
In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.
here is who represents the illegals.
The illegal aliens are represented by a well-funded, radical open-borders group Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)that refers to the U.S. governments immigration enforcement effort as racist and xenophobic.
MALDEF, which claims there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, has sued a state to obtain free public education for illegal aliens and various public colleges nationwide for denying illegal immigrants admission. After the 2001 terrorist attacks the group led a large-scale protest campaign against a federal crackdown on airport workers with immigration violations, claiming it harmed the civil rights of Latinos.
I don't believe there is a constitutional basis for their claim. It's a shame that this man has gotten caught in their litigious crossfire.
By the way, here is a possible inadvertent outcome from this suit. In Florida, and several other states, though I'm not sure where Arizona falls, if a person trespasses on your property, and you have a reasonable belief that they mean you harm, you can shoot them, and you have legal immunity from prosecution.
It would be ironic if this had the result of encouraging ranchers in Arizona to SHOOT illegals, rather than rounding them up for ICE.
Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.
If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.
In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.
Was that ever over ruled by precedent afterwards?
If border crossing were decriminalized, immigrants would use established border crossings and wouldn't engage in conflicts with landowners. Better yet, if American neoliberal expansion were checked and trade liberalization abandoned in favor of fair trade, large segments of the Mexican working class wouldn't be destabilized and forced to emigrate.
That being said, since immigration is often a forced necessity, there should be organized defenses of border crossers in case they encounter unwanted interlopers. I've never advocated wanton destruction of land or property, but landowners who seek to use relatively unprovoked violence against Latin American immigrants must be dealt with swiftly before they begin to labor under the delusion that their ethically suspect actions will go unnoticed.
As I mentioned when the last suggestion of using unnecessary violence against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants arose, I organized at several immigration rallies (including the May Day rallies), with several radical groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Discontent with neoliberal expansion was obviously high, and immigrants and their sympathizers would be angered at the prospect of being additionaly burdened by undue impositions from Southern hillbillies and their potshots, which is why I've previously advocated organizing MEChA, the Brown Berets, and unions from the revolutionary socialist parties to formed armed defense brigades of border crossers to deal swiftly with interlopers, especially when they trespass upon indigenous Nican Tlaca "migrants" and their mestizo relatives, as this would especially anger many Chicano activists.
If border crossing were decriminalized, immigrants would use established border crossings and wouldn't engage in conflicts with landowners. Better yet, if American neoliberal expansion were checked and trade liberalization abandoned in favor of fair trade, large segments of the Mexican working class wouldn't be destabilized and forced to emigrate.
That being said, since immigration is often a forced necessity, there should be organized defenses of border crossers in case they encounter unwanted interlopers. I've never advocated wanton destruction of land or property, but landowners who seek to use relatively unprovoked violence against Latin American immigrants must be dealt with swiftly before they begin to labor under the delusion that their ethically suspect actions will go unnoticed.
As I mentioned when the last suggestion of using unnecessary violence against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants arose, I organized at several immigration rallies (including the May Day rallies), with several radical groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Discontent with neoliberal expansion was obviously high, and immigrants and their sympathizers would be angered at the prospect of being additionaly burdened by undue impositions from Southern hillbillies and their potshots, which is why I've previously advocated organizing MEChA, the Brown Berets, and unions from the revolutionary socialist parties to formed armed defense brigades of border crossers to deal swiftly with interlopers, especially when they trespass upon indigenous Nican Tlaca "migrants" and their mestizo relatives, as this would especially anger many Chicano activists.
Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.
If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.
In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.
Was that ever over ruled by precedent afterwards?
You know.....there is a law in Texas called the "Castle Doctrine" law.
What this means, is that if someone is on your property, you have the right to tell them to leave, and if they don't you are authorized to defend your property by any means that you see fit.
If you kill them? Cool......less problems for the courts.
Matter of fact, last year there was a guy who saw 2 men robbing his neighbor's house, and so he called the cops, told them he was going to shoot them, and did. The 911 operator tried to talk him out of it, but, he wouldn't hear of it, and boom......2 dead crooks.
No charges were filed either.
There is a guy in Amarillo who just blew away 1 guy, and shot at another when they robbed his house last week.
No charges are going to be filed against him either.
So.....have the dude put up some no trespassing signs, and next one that shows up on his property?
Target practice, shoot to kill.
I'm sure the city would come and pick up the bodies.
We have the same law in Florida, and I support it 100%.
Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.
Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.
Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.
Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.
You know.....there is a law in Texas called the "Castle Doctrine" law.
What this means, is that if someone is on your property, you have the right to tell them to leave, and if they don't you are authorized to defend your property by any means that you see fit.
If you kill them? Cool......less problems for the courts.
Matter of fact, last year there was a guy who saw 2 men robbing his neighbor's house, and so he called the cops, told them he was going to shoot them, and did. The 911 operator tried to talk him out of it, but, he wouldn't hear of it, and boom......2 dead crooks.
No charges were filed either.
There is a guy in Amarillo who just blew away 1 guy, and shot at another when they robbed his house last week.
No charges are going to be filed against him either.
So.....have the dude put up some no trespassing signs, and next one that shows up on his property?
Target practice, shoot to kill.
I'm sure the city would come and pick up the bodies.
We have the same law in Florida, and I support it 100%.
For those of your in Florida specifically, be careful before you just blast away. The law under the "Stand your Ground" law is very similar to what I stated earlier.
Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.
Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.
Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.
Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.
For full analysis. See here.
Bring the troops home and put them on the Mexican border.
Agna Prostate, like I said before, nobody cares.
We will adjust to the situation," he says, "and obviously some of us have experience in the military . . . so there will be maybe some elements of surprises in terms of activities, and that is a warning to the militias.
This is just blather. Such a hypothetical does not exist. Further, some immigration is not "forced" it is all the free will of the lawbreakers. Unless you can show me pictures of people being forced over the border at the point of a gun, this is a bullshit claim.
The rest of that sentence makes no sense at all and only indicates a profoundly poor use or understanding of the English language. You do understand that an "interloper" is:
interloper [in-ter-lope-er]
Noun
a person in a place or situation where he or she has no right to be
That describes the criminals that are illegally crossing the border and no one else. Therefore, everything else you said make no sense at all.
I would like to know what these "revolutionary" about. Most folks would say that peaceful change of government would be evolutionary. Revolutionary would be violent change of government. Are you saying that these revolutionary groups are advocating violent change of the US government?
Yo.....Angry Prostrate........
What if YOU had a patch of land (that you lived on) somewhere in the Southern Border? And.......what if there were drug and gun runners that used your property as a doorway for this country?
Oh yeah.......they also steal your stuff and damage your property.......
THEN would you be in favor of decriminalizing the illegal border crossing?
They are called laws for a reason, and the penalty for breaking them should be severe.
I'm thinking death would be appropriate. After all, hogs and flowers gotta eat.
Bull shit. I've heard that crap long enough... "just a bunch of people coming over to better their lives"... HORSE SHIT!
rider calm down man.....blood pressure......nice bike by the way.....
If I was in the military (and I still might be at that), I'd likely refuse such an assignment no matter what court martial I got if others were willing to do the same. And I suspect that significant portions of the armed forces may be willing to do just that.
You don't know what you're talking about. Having organized with revolutionary socialist groups and organizations, there are numerous aggravated immigrants and immigrant sympathizers that I've encountered. Many adopt a stance similar to that of activist Armando Navarro, (critically) covered here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2233
I don't personally view these matters in a racial or ethnic perspective, but some Chicano activists do believe that most Mexicans and other Latin Americans are either indigenous Nican Tlaca or mestizos, and as such, have the right to travel where they wish on their own land, which they regard as having been unjustly conquested and ravaged by Europeans. The majority of immigrants don't advocate a "reconquista" or anything similar, obviously. It's just that some radical elements would be angered by perceived white repression of border crossers, and if actual violence were to occur, they may be sufficiently provoked to respond aggressively.
Moreover, your claim that there is no degree of coercion in Mexican border crossings is inaccurate; trade liberalization has involuntarily uprooted and displaced large portions of the Mexican working class.
If I had that patch of land on the Southern border, we'd have to assume that the U.S. honored the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo's land concessions, but we all know that isn't true. At any rate, legalizing border crossing is an optimal way of reducing conflicts between immigrants and border landowners since immigrants would have no reason not to use official checkpoints.
I don't personally view these matters in a racial or ethnic perspective, but some Chicano activists do believe that most Mexicans and other Latin Americans are either indigenous Nican Tlaca or mestizos, and as such, have the right to travel where they wish on their own land, which they regard as having been unjustly conquested and ravaged by Europeans. The majority of immigrants don't advocate a "reconquista" or anything similar, obviously. It's just that some radical elements would be angered by perceived white repression of border crossers, and if actual violence were to occur, they may be sufficiently provoked to respond aggressively.
Moreover, your claim that there is no degree of coercion in Mexican border crossings is inaccurate; trade liberalization has involuntarily uprooted and displaced large portions of the Mexican working class.
I would like to know what these "revolutionary" about. Most folks would say that peaceful change of government would be evolutionary. Revolutionary would be violent change of government. Are you saying that these revolutionary groups are advocating violent change of the US government?
Yes, I believe the Revolutionary Communist Party advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and capitalism, though that's obviously not a feasible goal at the moment. I personally don't favor such tactics, but I would be in favor of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation violently overthrowing the Mexican government if it were possible, especially since the theft of the presidential election from the PRD.
This presumes that you'd ever serve, which we all know you wouldn't.
Many of us are familiar with Aztlan, the reconquista movement, and MEChA.
Those who aren't should familiarize themselves since they represent the future of dealing with illegal immigration. I consider those groups in the same category as the Aryan Brotherhood and black supremacists organizations, and frankly, our government should be collecting intel on them if we aren't already since they represent a threat to our laws and national security.
Oh. So, threats of violence by brown pride activists should keep "whites" from protecting their own property. Interesting.
You want to use threats of retaliatory violence against anyone who dares to keep his property unmolested.
The vast majority of Americans don't support NAFTA anymore than the majority of Mexicans do. However, the vast majority of Americans DO support shutting down our southern border to stop the flow of illegals into this country, just like the vast majority of Mexicans support stopping the flow of illegal central Americans through Mexico's southern border.
IMO, we should be just as aggressive, or more aggressive, in protecting our borders as Mexico is.
Mexico lost. Deal. And, were the border crossings not readily accessible at any point and time, these people on the border would still be dealing with trespassers who feel entitled (as you just described) to cross anywhere they wish.
So your argument is not even internally cohesive.
I do envision future armed conflict with these revolutionary groups.
Guess what natives in this hemisphere need to deal with the conquests and reconquests of territory just like every other group of people in the world. The Greeks lost their empire, they don't get to go back now and claim that Turkey and the middle eastern countries need to let them do what they want because it used to be theirs. Tough shit, it isn't now. If they cannot deal, then we need to make them deal with reality. If they want to be ETA, then let's do it.
Economic dissatisfaction is no justification for violating the laws of another country. Further, you jokers can't have it both ways. Either NAFTA caused all the jobs to leave the US and enriched Mexico or it had a negative effect on Mexico. It didn't do both. Again, gobbledegook.
I thought you said you were helping to organize these revolutionaries. Did I misunderstand? I only want you on the record as advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You can do that for me right?