May I see your papers, citizen?

@Cycloptichorn,

Are you referring to the thread where you accused me of potentially being an accessory to murder and asking me to defend myself?!

Truly I ignored that post of yours so as not to embarass you, but since you bring it up - get a grip Smile

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

This is a bad thing, though you don't seem to see it that way

it pissed me off, but I understood. I was driving on back roads in Cochise County Arizona at night in a conversion van with the interior lights off. Any fool would wonder if my van had illegals in it

0 Replies

I think one solution to this mess for Arizona is that all people who the police come into contact with must show proof of residency. If every single person is asked for papers, no one can claim discrimination. All who can't produce the required evidence will be taken into custody on suspicion of being illegal, but given they're day in court to prove otherwise. Arizona would have to define what the appropriate paperwork is.

It still doesn't counter the Federal vs State jurisdiction question, but would solve their civil rights question. A few people who leave their driver's license at home would have to spend some time at the courthouse, but if Arizonians are ok with that, who am I to argue with them.

3 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Are you referring to the thread where you accused me of potentially being an accessory to murder and asking me to defend myself?!

Truly I ignored that post of yours so as not to embarass you, but since you bring it up - get a grip

Nobody accused you of being an accessory to murder. I can't tell if you are just a serial exaggerator or partially illiterate.

Instead, you claimed that everyone who was against the hateful bitch who stormed a house and participated in the murder of a man and a child should know better, because the Ballistics evidence proved otherwise. However, when asked, you won't present that evidence, you won't link to it, and you won't say how you got it. This forces me to assume that you were talking out your ass, and question your motives for doing so.

It is not I who needs to 'get a grip,' Helen, but you - someone who thinks that it's appropriate to defend murderers based primarily on her distaste for illegal immigrants.

Please provide the ballistics evidence that you said we all should have seen, in order to back up your statement - or withdraw your statement. Either will be fine.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Engineer wrote:

All who can't produce the required evidence will be taken into custody on suspicion of being illegal, but given they're day in court to prove otherwise.

I know nothing about what evidence one needs to prove his residency.

I only can imagine the nightmare for the guy who sold his house in Oregon and is on his way to New Mexico to live there in a trailer park, if he is pulled over by the Arizona police...

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

I think one solution to this mess for Arizona is that all people who the police come into contact with must show proof of residency

that would only work if Homeland Security was willing to cooperate, and get the illegals back where they belong in a timely manor. Given Obama's position on the law this is far from certain.

I dont think Arizona wants to round up large numbers of people, I think they want the Mexicans to know that they can at any time pick them up and send them home. Any Mexican illegal who does not have a good reason to stay, does not have roots already in Arizona, will likely go some place more hospitable. Arizona will be left with Illegals who have local family and/or jobs, with out doing a lot of enforcement. Enforcement will cost money, which Arizona does not have a lot of.

2 Replies

@Francis,

i carry my birth certificate with me at all times, people i know who were born in other countries and are now canadians carry their citizenship cards

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

............
Instead, you claimed that everyone who was against the hateful bitch who stormed a house and participated in the murder of a man and a child should know better, because the Ballistics evidence proved otherwise. ..........

WHAT?? It's too early to be drinking, Cycl, and I hope it's nothing incurable, but.....you're IMAGINING posts that DON'T EXIST.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think one solution to this mess for Arizona is that all people who the police come into contact with must show proof of residency. If every single person is asked for papers, no one can claim discrimination. All who can't produce the required evidence will be taken into custody on suspicion of being illegal, but given they're day in court to prove otherwise. Arizona would have to define what the appropriate paperwork is.

It still doesn't counter the Federal vs State jurisdiction question, but would solve their civil rights question. A few people who leave their driver's license at home would have to spend some time at the courthouse, but if Arizonians are ok with that, who am I to argue with them.

Sure, what's wrong with living in a Police State, where you have to carry documentation on you at all times or face arrest?

http://hotdogjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/police.jpg

Not a lovely future that you are envisioning there

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@engineer,

I've been pulled over a time or two Smile

I've never been asked for 'papers'. Usually a very polite policeman will ask for my driver's license and proof of insurance. The post office requires ID when I buy postage with a credit card. The grocery store would want to see ID if I purchase with a personal check. The security personnel at airports never ask for my 'papers', but want picture ID before letting me on the plane.

The last time I was pulled over (for speeding, which I wasn't really speeding IMO), I accidentally handed the officer my VISA (instead of my DL). We both laughed (me more than him) and he let me go with a warning Smile

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

if you had ANY real interest in the death of the girl you would have FOUND OUT by now WHOSE gun fired the bullet that killed her - the ballistics results came back long ago.

this statement kind of supports what cyclo is saying, it's the way you "cleverly" assemble sentences to make it sound like you know something nobody else does

do you know who fired the gun, and do you have a link to the evidence

would love to see what you have in the other thread

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
............
Instead, you claimed that everyone who was against the hateful bitch who stormed a house and participated in the murder of a man and a child should know better, because the Ballistics evidence proved otherwise. ..........

WHAT?? It's too early to be drinking, Cycl, and I hope it's nothing incurable, but.....you're IMAGINING posts that DON'T EXIST.

Oh, so there's some other High Seas who wrote these posts?

http://able2know.org/topic/133272-12#post-3974095

Quote:

I'm surprised that YOU dare answer on this thread - if you had ANY real interest in the death of the girl you would have FOUND OUT by now WHOSE gun fired the bullet that killed her - the ballistics results came back long ago. All you care about is scoring cheap political points, not the death of a child - ditto for the clowns who followed your lead, btw, did ANY of you look up who fired the shot that killed the girl?

Do you now KNOW if either PARENT's gun killed her? No - of course not! So much for your "compassion". Hypocrites, one and all.

http://able2know.org/topic/133272-12#post-3975693

Quote:

Do you have a link to that ballistics evidence? I only ask, because I just spent a little bit of time searching for it and was unable to find it.

Cycloptichorn
Quote:

The point isn't if I, personally, have it (and btw, I do, as do the prosecutors) the point is that you, Brown-Munoz, Parados, et al, DO NOT HAVE IT and still blithely claim to be ballistics experts, legal experts, judges, juries ALL WITHOUT ANY RELEVANT FACTS.

One good thing I have to say for all of you (except Parados, who doesn't understand the differenct between an indictment and a conviction) is that you all had the decency to stop posting once your ignorance of the facts became obvious.

Geez, you ought to let the management know your account has been hacked, because it sure looks like you posted exactly what I said you did.

The truth is that you did write exactly what I alleged you did. It's right there for anyone to read. You insulted anyone who had an opposite opinion of you in this case while claiming that you had special information about it.

Now provide that information, or admit that you have been - as I have long suspected - talking out your ass. Again. It has already been proven that you are willing to lie about what you have written; do you have the guts to continue to deny your own words?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Enforcement will cost money, which Arizona does not have a lot of.

Border states should probably get extra Federal funds to deal with their unique situations, no?

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Enforcement will cost money, which Arizona does not have a lot of.

Border states should probably get extra Federal funds to deal with their unique situations, no?

There are extra Federal funds? Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Quote:

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Arizona's tough new immigration law hasn't even gone into effect yet, and it's already working:

Mexico has issued an alert for Mexicans traveling to Arizona. The country is urging its citizens to be careful... that they may be "harassed and questioned without further cause at any time" should they go to Arizona.

That's not the case at all, but it is ironic. Travel warnings usually work the other way around... with various countries warning their citizens not to go to Mexico due to drug-related violence.

However, no good deed goes unpunished.

The Obama administration might challenge Arizona's new law in court. They're concerned the law could take away resources needed to target criminals. How utterly absurd. How about the 460,000 people who are in Arizona illegally now? The reason Arizona did this is the federal government refuses to enforce our immigration laws

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/mexico-issues-travel-alert-over-arizona-immigration-law/?hpt=T2

0 Replies

I meant to add this earlier, and forgot:

This bill is a political disaster for the Republican party. Hispanics are a growing group in America and are set to outnumber all other minority groups combined before too long, and within a hundred years they will BE the majority if the trends continue (something about not believing in birth control).

You would think this would lead the Republican party to step up their efforts to court these voters. Instead, they are doing the exact opposite: pursuing and defending policies which seemed specifically designed to harass and attack Hispanics. It is a stupid move and one which is going to backfire significantly come election time.

We can debate the merits of this bill all we want, but the electoral truth of the matter is pretty clear. It's like a gift-wrapped bar of gold for Democrats.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

We can debate the merits of this bill all we want, but the electoral truth of the matter is pretty clear. It's like a gift-wrapped bar of gold for Democrats.

you are delusional. You ignore the facts so as to perpetuate your myth that your team is noble. The facts are that support of this bill is primarily based upon geography, not politics, and that racial minority citizens approve of enforcing immigration laws. People who live near mexico have to deal with more of the costs of illegal mexicans than the rest of the country, and they are fed-up with the US Government's failure to act.

Having lived with in 30 miles of the border for five years I am highly sympathetic towards Arizona's actions.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I agree. Immigration is pretty far down the list, with jobs and the economy topping it. We'll see in November.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
We can debate the merits of this bill all we want, but the electoral truth of the matter is pretty clear. It's like a gift-wrapped bar of gold for Democrats.

you are delusional. You ignore the facts so as to perpetuate your myth that your team is noble. The facts are that support of this bill is primarily based upon geography, not politics, and that racial minority citizens approve of enforcing immigration laws.

Where is your evidence of this, exactly? Some bullshit Zobgy internet poll, or a Conservative Rasmussen poll? Bring some real evidence if you expect to be taken seriously on this issue.

Quote:

People who live near mexico have to deal with more of the costs of illegal mexicans than the rest of the country, and they are fed-up with the US Government's failure to act.

Bullshit - I lived in TX my whole life before I moved to CA. I have lived 'near the border.' And I was not fed up with the US Gov'ts lack of action.

What you really mean to say is right wingers are fed up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That's funny hawkeye10;

The Arizona Bill was passed with a party line vote-- Every single Republican voted for it, every single Democratic state senator elected by citizens of Arizona voted against it. The governor who signed it into law was a Republican. Previous similar anti-immigrant bills were vetoed by a Democratic governor.

It is being strongly opposed by Democratic elected officials in the state-- several Arizona mayors, all popularly elected as Democrats, are preparing court challenges against it. I don't think there is a single Democratic politician in the union that is supporting this bill.

Even the Republican John McCain (not that long ago there was an "amnesty" bill with his name on it) is supporting the bill. The Democratic potential challengers are all opposing it.

This is a Republican bill. Republicans passed it on their own. They will have to eat it on their own.

2 Replies

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know