They came first!

[JakeStarkey]

They came first for the Tea Partiers....

Nuff said.

Really? Because the Tea Party looks a lot like the SA to those not in it.

Obviously you have a very tame impression of the SA.

The Brown Shirts they aren't, for sure. That has been a very pleasant surprise for me, that this mixed group of right conservatives and reactionaries and libertarians, while loud, do not seem particularly dangerous.

 

[WillowTree]

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

************************************
'We learn from history that we learn nothing from history"
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"

Boycott Arizona.

WE PROMISE NOT TO TELL EM WHERE YER HIDING.. PROMISE..

 

[WillowTree]

What about the legals they will stop using "reasonable cause"?

I guess if they are latino, you don't care about their constitutional rights?

What about the fact a state has no business being involved in federal matters, and is unconstituional in trying to interfere with federal matters?

Once again for the slow and truly stupid. Federal law does not prevent States from enforcing Federal Law. In fact States are free to be as restrictive as Federal law in their own laws. It is ILLEGAL to be in this country with out permission. That is federal law. A State can and does have the authority to ENFORCE that law. There is no interference occurring except that the Federal Government is threatening to interfere in a State's right to govern and exercise their own laws with in the borders of their own State.

St

Does a State Court have Jurisdiction to enforce Federal Law? Simple question, provide the points and authorities proving what you post.
You are now free to cut and run after you call me a name.

NO NONONONONON THEY DO NOT..
So States are then noT duty bound to collect Federal Taxes as mandated by Federal law ie tobacco taxes,, school taxes,, THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION DO THEY?

States are not then duty bound to adhere to Federal Voting Laws..



Damn son,, you just let the States off the hook and they are not duty bound to Follow the FEDERAL HEALTH CARE LAW>>>THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION DO THEY? we can save all that money we would have spent going to the Supreme Court..

 

[Avatar4321]

St

Does a State Court have Jurisdiction to enforce Federal Law? Simple question, provide the points and authorities proving what you post.
You are now free to cut and run after you call me a name.

courts don't enforce law.

thanks for playing.

Oh, who does? A police officer? His supervisor? The DA? OMG, you're F'n dumb too.

The executive branch enforces the law.

 

[skookerasbil]

The federal government has one duty accoring to the Constitution. They have failed miserably in Arizona and all the border states. Time for states to act. Moreover, most people dont even know that this communist Janet Napolitano stopped the buliding of the fences. Good for the people of Arizona............they want their state back. Screw the people who are for lawlessness.

 

[mudwhistle]

No.

"No", then don't. But I never expected you CG to actually think beyond the emotion of the moment. Hate, Fear - works everytime with 'your kind'.

She is....but you aren't.

So it seems that hate and fear are your constant companion.

Let's face it....fear is what caused this....that and a lack of action by the government.

You can't blame the people of Arizona for being desperate about a serious problem that has been too long ignored by the President and Congress.

I think Obama needs to shut the fuck up and get out of the way because he's become part of the problem rather then the solution.

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

 

[Wry Catcher]

courts don't enforce law.

thanks for playing.

Oh, who does? A police officer? His supervisor? The DA? OMG, you're F'n dumb too.

The executive branch enforces the law.

So, please explain the role of the Judicial Branch.
Clearly you and WT are not very bright. Seems to be a very common (universal) characteristic of right wingers.
FACT: A police officer places a subject under arrest. The arresting authority prepares a report and certifies under penalty of perjury the truth of the allegation.
A DA reviews the report and either files a complain/information or declines to file. If s/he files the subject must be brought before a judge usually withing two judicial days for arraignment. The court decides if the subject is to remain in custody, and may ask for a bail hearing (sometimes done by probation). The matter is then set for further hearings.
In felony matters a pre-liminary hearing determines if there is sufficient evidence to hold the subject to answer to the allegations made by the arresting officer.
At any point a judge can order the release of the subject and dismiss the allegations against the offender with or without prejudice.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

I'm having a hard time accepting this in an adult discussion, got something else?

I think it's their Vote-grab attempt, not their Ideaology.

 

[skookerasbil]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

exactly

Think about it.........the k00ks never come up with a solution to problems like this. They just rail against anybody who has the balls to protest this "Ahhhh what the fcukk" attitude about everything!!

Terrorism??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Debt??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Illegal Immigration???"Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Unemployment??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Results of liberal public policies??? "Ahhhh........ what the fcukk"

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

exactly

Think about it.........the k00ks never come up with a solution to problems like this. They just rail against anybody who has the balls to protest this "Ahhhh what the fcukk" attitude about everything!!

Terrorism??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Debt??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Illegal Immigration???"Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Unemployment??? "Ahhhh......... what the fcukk"
Results of liberal public policies??? "Ahhhh........ what the fcukk"

Are you like 52 going on 13?Just askin, s0n!~

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't understand a boycott against a State simply for being vigilant about something that's illegal. Please explain.

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

I'm having a hard time accepting this in an adult discussion, got something else?

I think it's their Vote-grab attempt, not their Ideaology.

Please explain to me if there is any difference.

 

[G.T.]

It becomes a PROBLEM when it thwarts Democrat ideology.

I'm having a hard time accepting this in an adult discussion, got something else?

I think it's their Vote-grab attempt, not their Ideaology.

Please explain to me if there is any difference.

Ideaology is what one believes, a vote-grab is saying things you may or may not believe to mooch for votes.

 

[tigerbob]

Funny how these lefty dimmies want us to be like every other country out there but they don't believe we should enforce our immigration laws as thoroughly as other countries do.

Do some research on how tough it is to move to another country.

It's funny that they can't tell the difference between being persecuted for one's identity as opposed to being held accountable for transgressing the law.

SOP these days. Turn a policy you don't like into an ethnicity issue and put your opponents on the back foot because they are worried about being viewed as racist. Complete bullshit, but standard operational bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A boycott is a non violent method of showing displeasure. I am sympathetic to the people of Arizona, but don't for a minute believe they're under seige as suggested by one of the lesser lights of the RW Fringe.
Most illegal aliens are not here to commit violent crime, they are seeking work as a means of supporting their families. Our border should be secure and Federal Efforts to do so have been unsuccessful. This is not a new issue, and to blame the Obama Administration (as another of the lesser lights suggests Obama should, STFU) is partisan bull shit.
Immigration is a Federal matter and the Congress ought to do something about it. It is a wedge issue the R's hope to exploit in 2010, so the party of NO will be it's usual self and will stonewall any and all suggested solutions.
The Court(s) will overturn the Arizona Law; the State has no jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws (can you imagine if each of the 50 states determined who comes in and who doesn't) and on its face seems to violate the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

[G.T.]

A boycott is a non violent method of showing displeasure. I am sympathetic to the people of Arizona, but don't for a minute believe they're under seige as suggested by one of the lesser lights of the RW Fringe.
Most illegal aliens are not here to commit violent crime, they are seeking work as a means of supporting their families. Our border should be secure and Federal Efforts to do so have been unsuccessful. This is not a new issue, and to blame the Obama Administration (as another of the lesser lights suggests Obama should, STFU) is partisan bull shit.
Immigration is a Federal matter and the Congress ought to do something about it. Iit is a wedge issue the R's hope to exploit in 2010, so the party of NO will be it's usual self and will stonewall any and all suggested solutions.
The Court(s) will overturn the Arizona Law; the State has no jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws (can you imagine if each of the 50 states determined who comes in and who doesn't) and on its face seems to violate the fourth and fouteenth amendments.

There a legal and an illegal means to immigrate here. Do you actively support breaking the law?

 

[tigerbob]

A boycott is a non violent method of showing displeasure. I am sympathetic to the people of Arizona, but don't for a minute believe they're under seige as suggested by one of the lesser lights of the RW Fringe.
Most illegal aliens are not here to commit violent crime, they are seeking work as a means of supporting their families. Our border should be secure and Federal Efforts to do so have been unsuccessful. This is not a new issue, and to blame the Obama Administration (as another of the lesser lights suggests Obama should, STFU) is partisan bull shit.
Immigration is a Federal matter and the Congress ought to do something about it. Iit is a wedge issue the R's hope to exploit in 2010, so the party of NO will be it's usual self and will stonewall any and all suggested solutions.
The Court(s) will overturn the Arizona Law; the State has no jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws (can you imagine if each of the 50 states determined who comes in and who doesn't) and on its face seems to violate the fourth and fouteenth amendments.

There a legal and an illegal means to immigrate here. Do you actively support breaking the law?

Maybe the issue is that it's too hard.

Immigrating legally costs a bit of money, requires proof of identity, good conduct, medical records, plus of course you have to have a qualifying criterion in most cases.

If all those requirements were dropped (i.e. just show up at the border and tell us your name) we would quite likely have no more illegals.

I just fixed things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What about the legals they will stop using "reasonable cause"?

I guess if they are latino, you don't care about their constitutional rights?

What about the fact a state has no business being involved in federal matters, and is unconstituional in trying to interfere with federal matters?

I get stopped at DWI check points and I don't drink and drive. Go figure.

You can't stop someone for being latino.
Tell me, how are they going to establish reasonable cause?

If there's a BOLO for a Latino male 5'6" average build, who would you stop elderly Oriental ladies?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A boycott is a non violent method of showing displeasure. I am sympathetic to the people of Arizona, but don't for a minute believe they're under seige as suggested by one of the lesser lights of the RW Fringe.
Most illegal aliens are not here to commit violent crime, they are seeking work as a means of supporting their families. Our border should be secure and Federal Efforts to do so have been unsuccessful. This is not a new issue, and to blame the Obama Administration (as another of the lesser lights suggests Obama should, STFU) is partisan bull shit.
Immigration is a Federal matter and the Congress ought to do something about it. Iit is a wedge issue the R's hope to exploit in 2010, so the party of NO will be it's usual self and will stonewall any and all suggested solutions.
The Court(s) will overturn the Arizona Law; the State has no jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws (can you imagine if each of the 50 states determined who comes in and who doesn't) and on its face seems to violate the fourth and fouteenth amendments.

There a legal and an illegal means to immigrate here. Do you actively support breaking the law?

Nope. I would actively support Arizona making it a felony for anyone to hire an illegal alien. So the crowds of young men hanging outside of Home Depot may go home, simply because Joe Six Pack understands to hire cheap labor ain't cheap no more - the day jobs might go away quickly.
I'd make sure the owners of small and large business' understand the cost of hiring cheap labor, by increasing fines and imposing jail (or even prison) sentences for the executive management of large firms who violate the law.
Without work many of those young men may turn to crime, particularly drug sales and transportation. I support the Feds removing Marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs and allow Arizona (and all other states) to decide if M should be legally possessed and sold and under what terms and conditions.
I'd support anyone arrested for a crime to provide proof of citizenship at arraignment, and if the court determined illegal status that the complaint/information be amended to add an enhancement.
There is much to be done that can be done without violating the rights of citizens, as is likely under the recently passed law.