[mvisconte]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: Only the "law enforcement community" must enforce this law. This is untrue. Everyone paid by the state is required to enforce this law.

Just like every politician is supposed to represent the people (er, legal citizens with the right to vote) in his district? That's pretty much a laugh, so I wouldn't worry TOO much about it. But still, let's look at that... So, are you saying that a clerk in, say, the Department of Motor Vehicles, would be required to, say, question someone who might be showing up for a license for the first time, especially if that person didn't speak English, didn't know much about the requirements and responsibilities that go with having a license to operate a multi-ton, high powered piece of machinery, in and around housing developments, schools, businesses, etc? Are you suggesting that it would be WRONG to question that person? Are you suggesting that it would be wrong to ask that someone who is applying for a driver's license actually be a citizen? I suppose I can see your point... it's not really anybody's business whether a person piloting a speeding vehicle around soft, squishy people be a citizen or not. There are plenty of certainteed citizens who don't take the care one would want them to, so why should be pick on someone just because they shouldn't be here?

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: They they were not already being abusive. Heard of Joe Arpaio? I certainly have, and I'm not even American.

Heard of him? Sure. Good man. Doing a good job. Prisoners under his care don't like him. He's not buddy-buddy with them, isn't for soft conditions for people who are supposed to being punished for antisocial behaviour. They hate wearing pink underwear. They hate having classical music to listen to. They hate having their Playboy magazines taken away from them because they were masturbating publicly around female guards. That man [Arpaio] is heartless! I like that. It used to be that felons went to Penitentiaries. Places where people who had done wrong would go to be penitent. How heartless could we BE to send murderers and rapists to places of punishment? I, personally, think that life imprisonment is both cruel and unusual, and I would think that everybody would be better off if we had more death sentences for those folks than life sentences. It would also clear out some of the over-crowding, and maybe give us enough room to incarcerate illegal immigrants before deporting them. Maybe we could use Mexico's laws as a shining example!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: Committing crimes does not affect your immigration status. It does. This will lead to people who were legal immigrants being deported simply because of this law.

Maybe I am missing something... if they are legal citizens, then they wouldn't be deported. If they were illegal immigrants, then they should be deported. I would like to think that committing crimes WOULD affect someone's immigration status. That seems like a really good idea to me, so I don't know whether you are for or against that item. I find myself having little sympathy for people who commit crimes -- I guess I'm funny like that.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: ... I've made the point that, through no fault of their own, many perfectly legal immigrants are committing a crime under this law because of Federal paperwork processing delays.

Yeah. About that... maybe if we enforced immigration laws and deported illegal immigrants, it might lessen the workload and reduce that Federal paperwork processing delay. But even then, I don't have a ton of sympathy regarding that right now.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Also, for the record, what is your take on Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws?

"Gee, those National Party goons were pretty stupid -- see what happens when you don't control immigration?" "Gee, those White Democrats were pretty stupid. And Racist. And some still are today. Stupid Democrats." And, just for good measure, "Gee, that George Bush was ineffectual at protecting our borders, and so was Reagan, and so would McCain be, and sure as hell that Obama team are incompetent fools."

What's your take on drug trafficking, kidnapping, ransom, human trafficking, murder, gang violence, ...

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yea, no wonder you're confused.

Amazingly, I was thinking the same thing about you...

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

See, for starters, there are these things called legal immigrants and they're not the same as illegal ones...

Originally Posted by HeyItsTheArizonaFactSheet!

"Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state..."

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

He's one of the main vocal backers.

Yeah. Good man.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Deliberately had at least two people killed and one paralysed for life, yes.

Deliberately? Hm... deliberately. He intentionally had one person paralyzed for life? No? He carefully considered and then killed two people, or, he thought carefully and often slowly, as by weighing the alternatives, and then HAD two people killed? Wow. Heavy. I'm not sure exactly what to say there. Libel? You would think that the government (state, local, national) would have caught that... the deliberately part. Or the "had" two people killed. You would think. Yes.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

So giving him more tools to abuse is a good idea?

So... enforcing the LAW is... abuse? Man, I don't know where you come from, but over here, it's called... enforcing the law. You must be REALLY hot over prosecuting those child molesters and all.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

.... Oversight of the wrong (politically motivated) sort is worse, afaik, than lax oversight.

You mean like not wanting to enforce immigration laws, reverse descrimination, letting petty dictators lecture your country on immigration when their laws are pretty draconian? I think you're right.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Many laws not essential to the functioning of the state and protection of people's freedoms, yes. The law should never, ever, be an ass.

Neither should people who don't live in the country in question.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Mm-hum. HE HAD AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE MURDERED. Shit, there's nothing someone won't defend.

Libel? Do you have some personal knowledge of this that I can't find on wikipedia? We know that the internet is always right, but I'm not finding it there. Were YOU involved? Were you fronting for Arpaio and then turned against him? I really don't get it.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Not as long as there's a death grip on the numbers entering legally, no effective control over the border and higher wages on the American side. All you do is ensure the Coyote's grip over the people they've trafficked.

Same reasoning you're using as is used in the War on Drugs, remind me how well that's going? (Hint: drug import volume's up again)

So you admit that there's a problem? But I thought your side was that we shouldn't defend our streets, borders, selves, and shouldn't arrest criminals, etc.? Death grip? You are quite dramatic. No effective control over the border? You and I actually agree on something. We disagree what should be done about it, and the current administration doesn't seem to care at all about the problem. Higher wages in the states? Give it time... our President is doing his best to apologize America into a third-world country, at which point American's will be smuggling themselves into OTHER countries. Hey, if we go to Mexico, we get two years free rent and board!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

[Silly Liberal tripe]Here[], for example. Offences can lead to deportation.

If only we could deport all of our criminals. How do you think Cuba would treat several thousands of murderers, rapists, White Supremicists, Latino gangs, chinese gangs, south american gangs, paedophiles, muslim gangs, and parking violators? Personally, I think that Cuba would slaughter them out-right, in that free workers' paradise. In which case, we can airlift some battalions of ACLU, NAACP, and southern poverty law center lawyers in to stop the carnage. The cubans might have guns and long-sharp-pointy things, but lawyers have briefs and injunctions, and three piece suits!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I believe you're ducking the question. Those laws were entirely legal, and you have called for adherence to all laws. Your not answering the question is an answer in itself, you realise?

Nope, not me. I have no freakin' idea what your quention might be, although, based on your previous writting, I don't think that I will find it very realistic or lucid.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: You're "offending" the "occassional" legal immigrant. The correct words are "deporting" and "a large proportion of".

Assumption: You assume that I would find offending an occassinal legal immigrant to be more important than protecting the American populace as a whole. Worry about deporting even a large portion is not high on my list of concerns.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

A simple wording change would protect legal immigrants, but the Governor of Arizona has refused to do so. This means you can't realistically pretend that this is about anything but ALL immigrants, legal and illegal both.

What a drama queen. I don't have to pretend. This is about checking the status of everyone who might be here illegally, and preparing and shipping them off to be handled by the proper authorities. Maybe the Guv'nor had a good reason for not changing that single word. Maybe it's one of those goofy, "if you change even one word, then the whole bill has to go back through the legislature again. Maybe he knows more about it than you. Maybe when you get to be guv'nor or a state lawyer, you will understand and can explain it to us.