Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids

[Winston]

And ICE is not detaining people solely on the basis of race.

I thought you said you read the brief. Just exactly what is the government arguing? I don't think you read shit.

 

[Rawley]

I thought you said you read the brief. Just exactly what is the government arguing?

that many locations unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs—like day labor, landscaping, and construc-tion—are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paper-work; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Cen-tral America; and that many only speak Spanish

I don't think you read shit.

I know you read shit.

 

[Winston]

Which is not what the SC cases said was illegal. Did you even bother looking at them?

The only issue presented for decision is whether a roving patrol may stop a vehicle in an area near the border and question its occupants when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
From

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce​

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

supreme.justia.com

You ready to tangle?

 

[Rawley]

The only issue presented for decision is whether a roving patrol may stop a vehicle in an area near the border and question its occupants when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
From

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce​

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

supreme.justia.com

You ready to tangle?

Thanks for confirming you haven't read their breif.

 

[Winston]

that many locations unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs—like day labor, landscaping, and construc-tion—are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paper-work; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Cen-tral America; and that many only speak Spanish


I know you read shit.

And what previous SCOTUS case did they use to support that argument?

 

[Winston]

Thanks for confirming you haven't read their breif.

WTF, then how did I come up with United States v. Brignoni-Ponce?

 

[Rawley]

And what previous SCOTUS case did they use to support that argument?

Again, thanks for confirming you didn't read their brief.

 

[Winston]

that many locations unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs—like day labor, landscaping, and construc-tion—are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paper-work; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Cen-tral America; and that many only speak Spanish


I know you read shit.

I mean that is just horseshit. The most common job held by an illegal is a maid or housekeeper. You get back to me when ICE starts raiding hotels and private homes seeking to interrogate the maid.

 

[Winston]

Again, thanks for confirming you didn't read their brief.

LMAO, can't answer the question. I got the case in a tab too. If you read the brief, if you even had access to the brief, you could answer the question. Now ******* run along now and try your shit somewhere else.

 

[Rawley]

I mean that is just horseshit. The most common job held by an illegal is a maid or housekeeper. You get back to me when ICE starts raiding hotels and private homes seeking to interrogate the maid.

Just keep digging. I love when folks proudly display their ignorance.

 

[Rawley]

LMAO, can't answer the question. I got the case in a tab too. If you read the brief, if you even had access to the brief, you could answer the question. Now ******* run along now and try your shit somewhere else.

QED

 

[Winston]

Just keep digging. I love when folks proudly display their ignorance.

The brief is a 158 page PDF file. You haven't read 158 pages of anything in the last ******* decade. The government's argument is that the SCOTUS should reverse the California Appeals court decision stating that "appearance", language spoken, location, or job, is satisfactory grounds, in and of themselves, for probable cause, is insufficient.

In that brief they sourced United States v. Brignoni-Ponce which clearly ruled that perceived race is not probable cause and charges against two illegals and a national for transporting illegals were dismissed. Furthermore, they sourced THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MASS DEPORTATION IN CALIFORNIA. That report clearly destroys any argument about "probable cause", concerning language spoken and job. Now, interestingly enough, if you had read the brief, if you had two brain cells to rub together, you would understand that the one part of the four areas, "location", could actually be arguable. And, if you had read the case you would know that the SCOTUS ruling that supports that is Maldonado v. Holder.

I mean I trapped you. ICE cannot detain someone based on their perceived race. They cannot detain someone based on the language they are speaking or the job they are doing. Perhaps they could detain someone based on the fact that they are hanging out at the Home Depot looking for day labor. I mean I hand you a golden ticket and you ignore it due to your own ignorance.

And write it down. If the SCOTUS has any integrity, that will be the ruling, if they even choose to hear the case, which I highly doubt. They will run away from it like the plague and the appeals court ruling will stand.

 

[1srelluc]

Wow, and I thought you were a country boy. If they run, they are legal, if they stand still they are illegal. I mean damn, you out hunting with a friend. You're over the bag limit, your friend is not. Game warden shows up, which one runs? The one not over the bag limit, the game warden chases him only to catch him completely legit and you are long gone.

I see that went over your head.

 

[Rawley]

The brief is a 158 page PDF file. You haven't read 158 pages of anything in the last ******* decade. The government's argument is that the SCOTUS should reverse the California Appeals court decision stating that "appearance", language spoken, location, or job, is satisfactory grounds, in and of themselves, for probable cause, is insufficient.

In that brief they sourced United States v. Brignoni-Ponce which clearly ruled that perceived race is not probable cause and charges against two illegals and a national for transporting illegals were dismissed. Furthermore, they sourced THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MASS DEPORTATION IN CALIFORNIA. That report clearly destroys any argument about "probable cause", concerning language spoken and job. Now, interestingly enough, if you had read the brief, if you had two brain cells to rub together, you would understand that the one part of the four areas, "location", could actually be arguable. And, if you had read the case you would know that the SCOTUS ruling that supports that is Maldonado v. Holder.

I mean I trapped you. ICE cannot detain someone based on their perceived race. They cannot detain someone based on the language they are speaking or the job they are doing. Perhaps they could detain someone based on the fact that they are hanging out at the Home Depot looking for day labor. I mean I hand you a golden ticket and you ignore it due to your own ignorance.

And write it down. If the SCOTUS has any integrity, that will be the ruling, if they even choose to hear the case, which I highly doubt. They will run away from it like the plague and the appeals court ruling will stand.

LOL Your citation to Brignoni. I'll even help you:

The only issue presented for decision is whether a roving patrol may stop a vehicle in an area near the border and question its occupants when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

You cite where ICE is making that argument and I'll clean your toilets for a year. You can't cite it, you wash my dog's dick for a year.

Clock is ticking/

 

[Rawley]

I see that went over your head.

Like most things. I'm starting to remember why I had him on Iggie

 

[excalibur]

Per ICE rules, he goes too!

Goes where?

 

[excalibur]

Further proof that Trump’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate.

Well, if 98%+ of illegals are 'brown' skinned that is a factual matter, nothing more.

Playing the race card is the last desperate gasp, though.

 

[excalibur]

If you've got a better way to catch illegals, let's hear it.

He would allow as many here as possible.

 

[Winston]

LOL Your citation to Brignoni. I'll even help you:



You cite where ICE is making that argument and I'll clean your toilets for a year. You can't cite it, you wash my dog's dick for a year.

Clock is ticking/

‘Essence of racial profiling’: ICE’s L.A. rental truck raid may have violated court orders

City officials said Wednesday’s operation looks a lot like the kind of racial profiling raids the courts explicitly told ICE they could no longer conduct.

www.msnbc.com

What argument are they making?

The district court upended immigration-enforcement efforts throughout the entire Central District of California—a vast area encompassing some 20 million people and an estimated 2 million illegal aliens—by categorically enjoining immigration officers from conducting investigative stops that rest solely on any combination of four factors (i.e., a suspect's apparent race or ethnicity; whether he speaks Spanish or accented English; whether he is at a location where illegal aliens are known to gather; and whether his job is prevalent among illegal aliens because of the lack of documentation required.

They are arguing against that so how is it not arguing for detaining someone based on their "apparent" or "perceived" race?

 

[Winston]

I see that went over your head.

As if I give a damn about a movie. I am talking real life here hoss. You continue to live in your fantasy land.