Calif. City Takes Stand AGAINST Illegal Immigration

Originally posted by prionace glauca
The only BS talking points that are being spwed are by you.

Tell you what.

Want to be taken seriously?

You just used one that I can clearly quote, highlight, and demonstrate as an old tired empty little phrase.

Show me any example of me spewing any "talking points" and we can move forward from there. I will not entertain empty accusations simply because you are failing anything else.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

That may be true but I am not "people" so your point is lost on me. I only care about the method by which they go about it.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not sure that was English. Have your papers? Seriously, if you can not form a clear and complete English sentence, this might not be the discussion for you.

Just wanted to use your quote to answer your own quote,


As in what the poster was referring to when he meant the "people", he was referring to the sympathizers. Which we have a clue to what type of "people" you fall into.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Show me any example of me spewing any "talking points" and we can move forward from there. I will not entertain empty accusations simply because you are failing anything else.

Can I interest you in a cure for that talking point where you and your cohorts keep deeming this to be unconstitutional?

I'll just present it anyway....

Muehler vs Mena

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows detention of a search subject in handcuffs while a search is being conducted, and that it does not require officers to have an independent reasonable suspicion before questioning a subject about their immigration status.

Justices ruled 9-0 in that decision.

Deny Ignorance,

reply to post by K J Gunderson

They are being boycotted for the METHOD by which they have chose to pretend to go about it with. Seems a lot of people on ATS keep missing that.

SB 1070 makes it a misdemeanor to be in AZ in violation of Federal immigration statutes.

Local LEOs can enforce local crimes/misdemeanors but not Federal immigration statutes. If a person otherwise lawfully stopped or apprehended is found to be "undocumented" (e.g., no valid drivers license), they may be transported to ICE for handling by immigration authorities.

What's wrong with that? Any other laws you think should not be enforced? Should we boycott those jurisdictions that enforce them?

There is nothing inherently unfair or unlawful in what AZ has done. It is embarrassing to the Obama DHS/ICE, and to those who favor amnesty, but it is not wrong.

Unless CA or a local ordinance allows local to enforce Federal laws, this little town WILL be violating the law if it attempts to enforce things over which it has no jurisdiction.


deny ignorance

jw

[edit to note that all criminal penalties have today been eliminated from SB 1070; it is only civilly enforceable. Thus, no freedoms are in 'jeopardy,' only civil (money) penalties]


[edit on 21-5-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


He and others like him think this violates the 4th amendment, which the supreme court has already ruled on before by saying such is not the case.

Then the other talking point is, this is all RACIST. Anyone who supports the bill is a NAZI. You Fascist...