New Arizona Immigration Law

#101
#101
The legal brilliance on display in here about rights is awesome.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#102
#102
Cash Vallin said:
we allow for LEGAL immigration in this country... that doesn't give ANYBODY a right to question their citizenship when they have done nothing wrong
Click to expand...

I'll bet you have no problem with Slick Willy's demonization of tea party demonstrators who have done no wrong either??? Right???







BigPapaVol said:
The legal brilliance on display in here about rights is awesome.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What?? You're not calling anyone a POS because they don't conform to your somewhat limited concept of what is legal and what isn't??
 
#103
#103
Cash Vallin said:
Maybe not you in particular since I don't know where you stand on this issue... But the people I'm arguing with on here, is what those comments were meant for.
Click to expand...

I am still unsure my stance on the issue because I haven't been able to get a copy of the bill to read. I see no problem requiring someone show some form of legal identification if arrested and, if insufficient to prove legal status, take further action. If this is what the bill does, I don't necessarily have a problem with it (especially in light of AZ's very real criminal problems stemming from black market drug operations).

On the other hand, if the bill permits police to simply go up to any person and demand proof of their citizenship status, I believe that may be a bit over the edge. It certainly bypasses the probable cause protections of the fourth amendment. However, those went out a long time ago when the Supreme Court started letting the government search businesses "just to see" if they were in compliance with federal regulations (i.e., with no probable cause whatsoever).
 
Last edited:
#104
#104
gsvol said:
What?? You're not calling anyone a POS because they don't conform to your somewhat limited concept of what is legal and what isn't??
Click to expand...

he'll be proven wrong, but I'm not callinghim a POS because he's doing something illegal. I'm callinghim a pos because he's an embarrassment to the officer corps for shirking his duty over political horseshat that doesn't make a hill of beans. Maye you should read closer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#105
#105
I'm cool with handing over 40% of my income to the government, but if a cop asks to see my ID, get ready for anarchy.
 
#106
#106
BigPapaVol said:
he'll be proven wrong, but I'm not callinghim a POS because he's doing something illegal. I'm callinghim a pos because he's an embarrassment to the officer corps for shirking his duty over political horseshat that doesn't make a hill of beans. Maye you should read closer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

At the bare minimum this amounts to a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans.

On the contrary he isn't shirking his duty, he is actually being faithful to his oath and putting a spotless carreer on the line while doing so.

The only embarrassment to me as a veteran is that you as a former officer find it so easy to take cheap shots at his motivations and/or character, about which you can only guess.

I'm pretty sure I've read close enough to understand exactly what you are saying.

They say there are two kinds of officers one can serve under; one kind is the kind you would go through hell and die for and the other is the kind you would put a fatal bullet into at the first opportunity in case of real live combat, rest assured I'll never consider you to be a member of the former kind.

In a world filled with yes men, there has to be someone to say no once in a while, otherwise we become nothing more that robots.

BTW, the Colonel has not been charged and I doubt he ever will be. (not that the military as it is currently being run has any trouble finding individual soldiers to prosecute.)

Lakin will probably end up like a Major who served in combat in Vietnam who made the statement to the press; "What good does it do to write a field report when it is going to end up on the desk of some communist in Washington?"

That Major was directly ordered by no less than the Secretary of the Army, bypassing the whole chain of command, to retire to his family home in Colorado and when his commission expired he was simply not recommissioned.

Harder to pull that kind of high-handed crap these days, at least do it and keep it out of the public domain, what with the advent of the internet and improved communications.

Let me ask you something, do you think the American government abandoned American POWs in Vietnam?
 
#107
#107
gsvol said:
The only embarrassment to me as a veteran is that you as a former officer find it so easy to take cheap shots at his motivations and/or character, about which you can only guess.
Click to expand...

gsvol said:
They say there are two kinds of officers one can serve under; one kind is the kind you would go through hell and die for and the other is the kind you would put a fatal bullet into at the first opportunity in case of real live combat, rest assured I'll never consider you to be a member of the former kind.
Click to expand...

potmeetkettle.jpg
 
#108
#108
kptvol said:
I'm cool with handing over 40% of my income to the government, but if a cop asks to see my ID, get ready for anarchy.
Click to expand...

That two days a week you work for the government will soon be three if this adminstration gets it's way and by the time your grandchildren reach the age they have to provide for themselves, it could well be 100% and we'll have a new national anthem praising the USSA!








Cash Vallin said:
we allow for LEGAL immigration in this country... that doesn't give ANYBODY a right to question their citizenship when they have done nothing wrong
Click to expand...

What we need is proof of citizenship at voting polls and a failsafe system to keep some persons from voting at multiple stations and the prevention of votes being cast in the name of ficticious and dead persons.

Pulling over motorists and asking for ID is no big deal, it happens all over our nation on a daily basis.
 
#111
#111
paul1454 said:
I am still unsure my stance on the issue because I haven't been able to get a copy of the bill to read. I see no problem requiring someone show some form of legal identification if arrested and, if insufficient to prove legal status, take further action. If this is what the bill does, I don't necessarily have a problem with it (especially in light of AZ's very real criminal problems stemming from black market drug operations).

On the other hand, if the bill permits police to simply go up to any person and demand proof of their citizenship status, I believe that may be a bit over the edge. It certainly bypasses the probable cause protections of the fourth amendment. However, those went out a long time ago when the Supreme Court started letting the government search businesses "just to see" if they were in compliance with federal regulations (i.e., with no probable cause whatsoever).
Click to expand...

This is where I have a hang up with it.

If we wait until they have committed their second crime, we could be arresting them after the murder of a cop, border agent, or common citizen.

I think the extreme of dragging legal citizens by the hair to the court house for identification is overblown.

When "Civil Rights" stands in the way of the safety of legal citizens, its not "Civil" anymore.
 
#112
#112
paul1454 said:
I am still unsure my stance on the issue because I haven't been able to get a copy of the bill to read. I see no problem requiring someone show some form of legal identification if arrested and, if insufficient to prove legal status, take further action. If this is what the bill does, I don't necessarily have a problem with it (especially in light of AZ's very real criminal problems stemming from black market drug operations).

On the other hand, if the bill permits police to simply go up to any person and demand proof of their citizenship status, I believe that may be a bit over the edge. It certainly bypasses the probable cause protections of the fourth amendment. However, those went out a long time ago when the Supreme Court started letting the government search businesses "just to see" if they were in compliance with federal regulations (i.e., with no probable cause whatsoever).
Click to expand...
I can agree with this
 
#113
#113
gsvol said:
That two days a week you work for the government will soon be three if this adminstration gets it's way and by the time your grandchildren reach the age they have to provide for themselves, it could well be 100% and we'll have a new national anthem praising the USSA!










What we need is proof of citizenship at voting polls and a failsafe system to keep some persons from voting at multiple stations and the prevention of votes being cast in the name of ficticious and dead persons.

Pulling over motorists and asking for ID is no big deal, it happens all over our nation on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
yes, when they break the law
 
#115
#115
beergood said:
I just want to know, specifically, why LG doesn't answer any of Tenacious D's posts. Clearly, LG is getting ridden like a coin operated horse outside of K-Mart. And the worst part is, there is absolutely nothing he can do stop it.

Because Loquacious D cant be stopped...
Click to expand...

Like most liberals, he shirks away from honest questions requiring deliberate answers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#117
#117
Cash Vallin said:
yes, when they break the law
Click to expand...

So, an officer may only pull you over and ask for your ID after you have violated the law?

For someone so adamant about the protection of civil liberties, I'd think you'd see at least some need for due process.

Guess not.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#119
#119
Cash Vallin said:
[/B]


Wait, don't we ALL have choices to get out of bad situations???? :dance2:
Click to expand...
I wasn't born wealthy enough to buy a Ferrari, but others were. However, I'd like to choose to own a Ferrari. Does that mean I should have it?

If my neighbor has it, can I take his?

If I don't take his, can I sneak it out and drive it, so long as I return it?

Now, imagine that the Ferrari in question is yours. Still think that the situation you're born into should be mitigated through lawless behavior?

Illegal immigrants are here, how do I say it, illegally. They should be rounded up and deported - neither for moral nor ethical reasons, alone, but for legal ones. Which, by the way, are those which the majority of Americans have urged and supported to become law through our representative form of government.

Typical liberal - be draconianly exacting on those laws which support their viewpoints (ie separation of church and state, etc.) - and ignore them with 1,000 rationalizations when they don't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#120
#120
If I truly wanted to help illegal immigrants, I'd go to work in their countries, donate money to their governments, plead for social change, pressure industries to supply them with jobs, and above all, I would insist upon their civil liberties being both provided and protected by their native country.

That way, you provide the "help" which both they and their country need - and not just to those who are brazen, healthy or lucky enough to have illegally immigrated here, but all of them.

To only want this for those who illegally immigrate into this country, and not those who cannot do so, commits any number of prejudices - age, sex, etc.

And by the way, its always amusing to hear the same liberals proclaim the "Gospel" of natural selection in the classroom, while fighting against its occurrence outside of it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
I wonder how those not fortunate enough to have been born in the country immediately adjacent to the U.S. - and who must complete the application process and wait years for permission to enter, if it's ever given at all - feel about amnesty being given to those who just ran across the boarder?

What about those immigrants who completed this arduous process, and are either legally working here or have since become citizens? What do they think of allowing illegals from South and Central America being able to enter and stay here, while millions of others cannot?

I'd ask them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#124
#124
This is what Paul1454 said..

"This is how I think. I see no problem requiring someone show some form of legal identification if arrested and, if insufficient to prove legal status, take further action. If this is what the bill does, I don't necessarily have a problem with it (especially in light of AZ's very real criminal problems stemming from black market drug operations).

"On the other hand, if the bill permits police to simply go up to any person and demand proof of their citizenship status, I believe that may be a bit over the edge. It certainly bypasses the probable cause protections of the fourth amendment."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top