no tax return, no place on ballot

[pknopp]

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

Depends. What am I doing?

Exactly.

.

So it depends on what I am doing whether or not I have an I.D. on me. How does not having one verify anything?

When would police take the time to check an ID?

Do you live in Texas?

We have 200,000 illegals driving illegally.

.

You probably do.

 

[OKTexas]

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

They can check the status. By contacting Ice.

Wow, so you lie in the face of evidence. You're one pathetic individual. They can ask for documents, green card, birth certificate or passport, I guess they could check with ICE also, but it's not required.

.

I have none of those things on me. you?

Nope, but I have my TX drivers license and CHL, the DL is proof I'm legal and the CHL is proof of citizenship. I also have my BC, hospital certificate of birth and passport here at my desk, along with many other documents that can prove who I am and my citizenship.

.

 

[iceberg]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

And this is what is going to happen. What dems in California are doing is putting in a "poison pill" to target individuals. If this is allowed look for it to be the next political game we beat each other up with.

If you want this change it needs to be at a federal level and for the good of the system. Not individual desires and butthurt.

For it to be a poison bill, not being on the primary ballot would have do Trump great harm. The fact is if Trump was not on the primary ballot, the republican state committee would still select Trump pledged delegates to the convention so it would make no difference in the nomination. However, even it was, there is nothing illegal about. The state has control over state elections, an issue republicans have championed over and over.

Fine.

Shut the fuck up when the right pulls this in a payback move.

That really what you want to support? MORE bullshit games?

Payback? Exactly how are going to do that.

by coming up with a stupid "new rule" to keep someone off the ballot.

don't sit and pretend it will be WRONG when someone else does it. that's how you got trump.

 

[daveman]

Just like ICE does, they ask for a birth certificate and/or green card.

.

They can't. It's why Arpaio was found guilty.

.

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

 

[pknopp]

They can't. It's why Arpaio was found guilty.

.

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

 

[daveman]

.

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

Or you could just admit you screwed up.

 

[Flopper]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

And this is what is going to happen. What dems in California are doing is putting in a "poison pill" to target individuals. If this is allowed look for it to be the next political game we beat each other up with.

If you want this change it needs to be at a federal level and for the good of the system. Not individual desires and butthurt.

For it to be a poison bill, not being on the primary ballot would have do Trump great harm. The fact is if Trump was not on the primary ballot, the republican state committee would still select Trump pledged delegates to the convention so it would make no difference in the nomination. However, even it was, there is nothing illegal about. The state has control over state elections, an issue republicans have championed over and over.

Fine.

Shut the fuck up when the right pulls this in a payback move.

That really what you want to support? MORE bullshit games?

Payback? Exactly how are going to do that.

by coming up with a stupid "new rule" to keep someone off the ballot.

don't sit and pretend it will be WRONG when someone else does it. that's how you got trump.

How does requiring a candidate to make his tax returns available keep anyone off the ballot. If he doesn't have a copy of his tax return, the IRS will certainly provide him with a copy. Courts are not going to let states request information that candidates can not provide. If a person is going to run for office, they should be prepared to make all information available that is need by voters to make an informed choice. It is the states decision as to what information is required since they run the election just as it's the states decision of when and where elections are held, the requirements for appearing on the ballot and finally whether there will actually be an election. It is the states decision whether to conduct a primary election. Neither the state or federal constitution requires it.

 

[OKTexas]

.

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

 

[pknopp]

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

Or you could just admit you screwed up.

Still waiting to hear how a state decides whether someone is here legally or not.

 

[pknopp]

If you don't know he was found guilty......generally asking for one is valid but......

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

 

[danielpalos]

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

I am, QUOTE]

As I said. If you have a point, make it.

It's pretty damn simple commie, you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not illegal for police or anyone else to verify a persons status during a legitimate encounter.

.

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

California should be insisting the general government do its job. All foreign nationals in the US should be known to that government and federally identified for civil purposes. We should have no illegals or an illegal underclass, simply because we don't have an express immigration clause.

 

[OKTexas]

No buts, you made a claim, I simply asked for proof. I guess you're not confident enough in your position, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

.

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

 

[TNHarley]

States cannot regulate federal elections. It's in the constitution dumbfucks.
Also there are previous SC cases that said the same thing.
Amend the constitution or stfu

 

[pknopp]

If you are in Texas you are fully aware of what happened to Arpaio.

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

 

[OKTexas]

Why? Arpaio was a sheriff in Arizona.

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

 

[pknopp]

They finally admitting they knew what happened.

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

I have, you have not answered how it is the state can determine whether someone is here illegally or not. It was said to ask for a green card even though very few people, legal or not will have one. A birth certificate. No one carries them around.

Please explain the process to me.

 

[Pooh]

And it wasn't what you claimed commie.

.

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

I have, you have not answered how it is the state can determine whether someone is here illegally or not. It was said to ask for a green card even though very few people, legal or not will have one. A birth certificate. No one carries them around.

Please explain the process to me.

Tsk,tsk,tsk.
Playing games. ALL people here "legally" have a trail that can be followed. Economic, paper, electronic or otherwise. Do you thinks it's cute to try and shift what he asking to simply an "on the spot" identification? That's both childish and sophomoric.

 

[pknopp]

Same here. Going to explain how a state determines whether someone is here legally or not?

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

I have, you have not answered how it is the state can determine whether someone is here illegally or not. It was said to ask for a green card even though very few people, legal or not will have one. A birth certificate. No one carries them around.

Please explain the process to me.

Tsk,tsk,tsk.
Playing games. ALL people here "legally" have a trail that can be followed. Economic, paper, electronic or otherwise. Do you thinks it's cute to try and shift what he asking to simply an "on the spot" identification? That's both childish and sophomoric.

Please, explain. If you are going to say I am wrong, you have to be able to explain why.

 

[Pooh]

What's that got to do with Arpaio, or what he was convicted of?

.

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

I have, you have not answered how it is the state can determine whether someone is here illegally or not. It was said to ask for a green card even though very few people, legal or not will have one. A birth certificate. No one carries them around.

Please explain the process to me.

Tsk,tsk,tsk.
Playing games. ALL people here "legally" have a trail that can be followed. Economic, paper, electronic or otherwise. Do you thinks it's cute to try and shift what he asking to simply an "on the spot" identification? That's both childish and sophomoric.

Please, explain. If you are going to say I am wrong, you have to be able to explain why.

LOL, I did. Perhaps you comprehension skills could use some work?

 

[pknopp]

Answer my question and we can get to that.

Asked and answered, read the damn thread.

.

I have, you have not answered how it is the state can determine whether someone is here illegally or not. It was said to ask for a green card even though very few people, legal or not will have one. A birth certificate. No one carries them around.

Please explain the process to me.

Tsk,tsk,tsk.
Playing games. ALL people here "legally" have a trail that can be followed. Economic, paper, electronic or otherwise. Do you thinks it's cute to try and shift what he asking to simply an "on the spot" identification? That's both childish and sophomoric.

Please, explain. If you are going to say I am wrong, you have to be able to explain why.

LOL, I did. Perhaps you comprehension skills could use some work?

Explain the process to me. My position is the state can not legally determine whether someone is here legally or not on their own. It's odd how so many call me wrong but they won't explain themselves.