Seriously thoughtful How do you plan to prove you are a citizen?

[kennyc]

And considering the Alien invasion, how do you plan to prove you are HUMAN?

Huh?

[GeoffC]

only humans would live here !

[kindlekitten]

can we all point our fingers at Switzerland yet?

seriously. unless you have LIVED in a state that is dealing with the issue, I'm not sure there is room to talk. I loathed my time in California, watching how the immigrant workers legal or not were treated. I also know that the town I was closest to, Salinas, had at LEAST one muder a week and almost all of them were perpetuated on or by illegal immigrants. this is a huge problem that we MUST get under control. having a bunch of people that DON'T live in the reality trying to dictate "proper" responses sure as hell won't work.

I lived in Germany and saw how the "gast arbiters" were treated. I'm certain we'd play hell if we tried that here!

and as for the border states like... well Washington... we have an enhanced ID. takes a little bit more documentation to get it, but if you qualify not an issue. personally, I've kept my passport valid since I was a soldier. there never seemed to be a real good reason not to. Europeans dealt with it all the time

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Maybe it's a male/female thing, Steve. I don't carry a purse. I don't know where that puts me in minority or majority of females, but if I'm not driving, and I dont' have pockets in whatever I'm wearing, the ID stays home. This happens pretty frequently with me, but come to think of it, I probably AM in a pretty small percentage. Also, I'm used to Chris...who has had to turn around and go back to the house more times than I can count because he didn't have his wallet (with his license in it) with him. He got out of the habit of carrying it and now can't get back INTO the habit, LOL.

actually I'veonly started carrying a purse in the last 2 years. I always carried a wallet in my pants before that. if I was really dressed up I at least had a clutch or something with my ID and taxi money in it. even when married. some things are completely ingrained. if I was in a situation where I couldn't have a wallet or purse or clutch I would stick my drivers license in my bra. not sure if it is the military or living overseas or what, but I'd no sooner leave my house without ID than I would wothout my shirt

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Better check those stats. Most Americans have never been more than 200 miles away from where they were born, unless they served in the Military.

Stitchawl

that is actually a good stat for Europeans as well. surprised the hell out of me, but it is relevant. I guess for those of us who have started to travel... once the genie is out of the bottle, it's GONE! but for others.... not so much

[dfigueroa]

I carry my passport with me at all times. I did it even when I was living in the States. A habit, I suppose, from having lived outside the US for so many years. Though, when I was in the US full time, I usually carried my EXPIRED passport, which I could lose without crying

I am a 3rd generation Irish-American (but since I have an Hispanic last name now, I worry) and I find this Arizona law to be Draconian at best. I just don't see how it's not going to be struck down in the federal courts.

[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.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mvisconte

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!

Don't you think it borders on cruel to do something only because someone else finds it unpleasant? Pink underwear and classical music are minor I'm not suggesting a lawsuit but at the same time a prisoner doesn't cease to be human and misery for misery's sake isn't justice it's sadism. I'm not saying make jail pleasant I'm saying that since the court didn't impose a sentence of pink underwear common sense says make the standard issue stuff whatever looks best for the budget.

Also keep in mind we're talking about jail not prison, jail being the place for petty offenders and persons awaiting trial. If you would concede that perhaps innocent persons do face trial could i get you to agree that moving from mere confinement to something unpleasant for unpleasantness' sake is doing a disservice to those who need to prepare a court defense?

Just a thought.

[mvisconte]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Don't you think it borders on cruel to do something only because someone else finds it unpleasant?

What? You! A PIRATE!? You're worried that if someone finds something unpleasant that it borders on CRUEL? Heaven and Hell, have we raised worms instead of men? Cattle instead of warriors? I'll bet your capn' is right ashamed of your.

What's "unpleasant"? I have spent many a sunday afternoon visiting elderly relatives as my parents performed their fillial duties. I was confined to dusty, medicinal- and mold-smelling houses, too cold or too warm for my "comfort", with no toys or books, and only a younger brother to torment to keep brain activity going. I had to eat what they ate -- all grown-up food, I had to stay and listen to the old folks discuss stupid stuff.

If THAT wasn't unpleasant, then I don't know what was. It wasn't painful, tho. What about the time I got a fishhook through my finger. The dangers of having an enthusiastic little brother. I had to keep it that way for about an hour with the trip to find mom, get the other kids watched over, take me to the hostipal, wait for a doctor, have him and mom discuss it, an xray, then the SOB distracted me and pushed that sucker clearn through! Nipped off the end and slid the barbless hook out. Then lots of smelly, burny liquids got poured on, and a couple of shots, and then sitting there stinging while mom did some paperwork with the doctor. Then the right home with a finger that burned and stung but had no senses. THAT was unpleasant.

Oh, and that time that I asked that cute girl out to a dance at school, and after we had danced a couple of times, her old boy friend came up and wanted to talk to her. She didn't want to go back with him, and she rode with me, and I was supposed to protect her and bring her back and they were causing a scene, and I still hadn't had anything to drink and the music sucked, and a bunch of guys I knew saw us and were ragging me about grabbing her and punching him out and stupid stuff. Then he wanted to fight me, and then he started crying, and then some teachers came over and everybody had to talk to each teacher, etc. and then in the end, I had to drive them BOTH back to their houses, and she didn't sit up front with me, but sat in back and whispered and held hands with Xboy. When I dropped him off, she got out too, and I left alone.

Not THAT was hurtful, unpleasant, depressing, and a whole bunch of emo words, if I cared to get them.

Did I tell you about having my wisdom teeth extracted by a colonel who really didn't give a crap about teeth, and certainly didn't want to deal with little boys, and when he pulled them, he didn't pack the sockets, leading to dry sockets that lasted for weeks.

Did you hear that some kids don't want to go down for naps? They find them unpleasant. And some kids refuse to eat anything but the one food (not necessarilly the good food) all the time. When parents try to force the kids to eat different things, those kids are having an unpleasant and cruel experience.

I find having to work for a living cruel and unpleasant, but the stupid people at work don't want to pay me if I don't come in a work. Talk about screwed up! Don't they know what they're doing to me?


-----

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Pink underwear and classical music are minor I'm not suggesting a lawsuit but at the same time a prisoner doesn't cease to be human and misery for misery's sake isn't justice it's sadism. I'm not saying make jail pleasant I'm saying that since the court didn't impose a sentence of pink underwear common sense says make the standard issue stuff whatever looks best for the budget.

If they go to prison, they are being punished. Punishment isn't just "i'm going to make you get up early, and give you some free time. Then you'll sit still in that room over there for 8 hours a day, then You'll get a dinner and have 4 hours free time, then it's lights out."

"That's harsh! I'm calling my lawyer!"

"You're right, son. The whole world is gone mad! I heard of a guy that murdered a whole family = mom, dad, older daughter, and young child -- on Christmas Eve. He and accomplises kidnapped 'em, took 'em into the basement, tied them up, and tortured and killed them one by one.
In the beginning, they took away his cable tv access, but the ACLU folks came in and fixed it all right. Now they have to pay for the premium channels.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Also keep in mind we're talking about jail not prison, jail being the place for petty offenders and persons awaiting trial. If you would concede that perhaps innocent persons do face trial could i get you to agree that moving from mere confinement to something unpleasant for unpleasantness' sake is doing a disservice to those who need to prepare a court defense?

Just a thought.

Ah. Yes. "petty offenders and, while awaiting trial."

Petty offenders... maybe they will be traumatized by the pink dinkie experiments that they will no longer be abel to behave in a dishonest/harmful way! Perfect! They do the crime, they get sentenced to the time, they do the pink undies, they get embarssaed, they learn to associate embarrassment with crime, and then they're unable to committ crime without feeling the unpleasantness of conscience.

Those needing to prepare a court defense? Seriously? We're locking up lawyers now? Wow! We may have more hope than I thought.

"ah, judge, I was going to prepare a court's defence today, but, I don't know, I've been feeling a little pink around the gills, if you know what I mean..."

"Son, I notice you have pink underwear on. What did you do?"

"Violent assault.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by mvisconte

Heard of him? Sure. Good man. Doing a good job.

Thanks for proving precisely where on the wingnut spectrum you are.

Maybe I am missing something...

Yes, it's called ethics.

if they are legal citizens, then they wouldn't be deported. If they were illegal immigrants, then they should be deported.

And again, you evidently have not heard that there are these things called "legal immigrants" and "permanently residents", who are not citizens, but are not supposed to be thrown out of the country.

What a surprise. Oh, have a tissue to wipe up the frothing at your mouth.

Deliberately? Hm... deliberately. He intentionally had one person paralyzed for life? No?

Yes. His policy, his responsibility. Period.

So you admit that there's a problem?

Yes, you and your kind.

But I thought your side was that we shouldn't defend our streets, borders, selves, and shouldn't arrest criminals, etc.?

No, that's just the standard histrionic crap which you throw up at anyone who disagrees with you, in the hope that it actually has some bearing on anything they've said. I have not and will not take any position on illegal immigrants in this thread, so your attack is and can only be on legal immigrants.

I'll pass that along.

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.

...And we find out that you know precisely NOTHING about the process. What a surprise!

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mvisconte

What? You! A PIRATE!? You're worried that if someone finds something unpleasant that it borders on CRUEL? Heaven and Hell, have we raised worms instead of men? Cattle instead of warriors? I'll bet your capn' is right ashamed of your.

What's "unpleasant"? I have spent many a sunday afternoon visiting elderly relatives as my parents performed their fillial duties. I was confined to dusty, medicinal- and mold-smelling houses, too cold or too warm for my "comfort", with no toys or books, and only a younger brother to torment to keep brain activity going. I had to eat what they ate -- all grown-up food, I had to stay and listen to the old folks discuss stupid stuff.

If THAT wasn't unpleasant, then I don't know what was. It wasn't painful, tho. What about the time I got a fishhook through my finger. The dangers of having an enthusiastic little brother. I had to keep it that way for about an hour with the trip to find mom, get the other kids watched over, take me to the hostipal, wait for a doctor, have him and mom discuss it, an xray, then the SOB distracted me and pushed that sucker clearn through! Nipped off the end and slid the barbless hook out. Then lots of smelly, burny liquids got poured on, and a couple of shots, and then sitting there stinging while mom did some paperwork with the doctor. Then the right home with a finger that burned and stung but had no senses. THAT was unpleasant.

Oh, and that time that I asked that cute girl out to a dance at school, and after we had danced a couple of times, her old boy friend came up and wanted to talk to her. She didn't want to go back with him, and she rode with me, and I was supposed to protect her and bring her back and they were causing a scene, and I still hadn't had anything to drink and the music sucked, and a bunch of guys I knew saw us and were ragging me about grabbing her and punching him out and stupid stuff. Then he wanted to fight me, and then he started crying, and then some teachers came over and everybody had to talk to each teacher, etc. and then in the end, I had to drive them BOTH back to their houses, and she didn't sit up front with me, but sat in back and whispered and held hands with Xboy. When I dropped him off, she got out too, and I left alone.

Not THAT was hurtful, unpleasant, depressing, and a whole bunch of emo words, if I cared to get them.

Did I tell you about having my wisdom teeth extracted by a colonel who really didn't give a crap about teeth, and certainly didn't want to deal with little boys, and when he pulled them, he didn't pack the sockets, leading to dry sockets that lasted for weeks.

Did you hear that some kids don't want to go down for naps? They find them unpleasant. And some kids refuse to eat anything but the one food (not necessarilly the good food) all the time. When parents try to force the kids to eat different things, those kids are having an unpleasant and cruel experience.

I find having to work for a living cruel and unpleasant, but the stupid people at work don't want to pay me if I don't come in a work. Talk about screwed up! Don't they know what they're doing to me?


-----


If they go to prison, they are being punished. Punishment isn't just "i'm going to make you get up early, and give you some free time. Then you'll sit still in that room over there for 8 hours a day, then You'll get a dinner and have 4 hours free time, then it's lights out."

"That's harsh! I'm calling my lawyer!"

"You're right, son. The whole world is gone mad! I heard of a guy that murdered a whole family = mom, dad, older daughter, and young child -- on Christmas Eve. He and accomplises kidnapped 'em, took 'em into the basement, tied them up, and tortured and killed them one by one.
In the beginning, they took away his cable tv access, but the ACLU folks came in and fixed it all right. Now they have to pay for the premium channels.



Ah. Yes. "petty offenders and, while awaiting trial."

Petty offenders... maybe they will be traumatized by the pink dinkie experiments that they will no longer be abel to behave in a dishonest/harmful way! Perfect! They do the crime, they get sentenced to the time, they do the pink undies, they get embarssaed, they learn to associate embarrassment with crime, and then they're unable to committ crime without feeling the unpleasantness of conscience.

Those needing to prepare a court defense? Seriously? We're locking up lawyers now? Wow! We may have more hope than I thought.

"ah, judge, I was going to prepare a court's defence today, but, I don't know, I've been feeling a little pink around the gills, if you know what I mean..."

"Son, I notice you have pink underwear on. What did you do?"

"Violent assault.

*sigh* Where to start, My sig is from the pirates of penzance where the pirate king sings about how as a pirate he's far more honest than people in so-called respectable professions who's dirty work rise to extreme measures.

Second we didn't raise worms or men, I'm a woman.

Third, you listed some unpleasant things for you that were not done simply because they are unpleasant but because of some physical need and personal duty, apples and oranges. I never suggested anyone be given a life filled from unpleasantness what i argued against was making something unpleasant just for the sake of doing so. I'm speaking of the acts of a bully, you do see the difference do you not? Do you believe a visit to elderly family members is an act of punishment who's only purpose was to make you unhappy? I don't think anyone is that self centered. Now let me ask you this, does pink underwear serve a practical purpose that wouldn't be served by red blue green or white underwear?

Fourth, I did not mention prison, a sheriff does not run a prison, such a person runs a jail. They are not the same thing. A jail is for petty offenders with short sentences and persons awaiting trial who have not posted a bond. A drunk who pees on your car goes to jail, a rapist goes to prison after a fair trial and a conviction. In neither case is the sentence embarrassment, it is imprisonment.

Fifth, I'm not sure locking up all the lawyers would be a bad thing but a lawyer does not prepare a defense alone and a citizen does have a right to to argue motions pro-se. One of the requirements to be competent to stand trial is the ability to assist in your own defense. And even if you thought persons who are innocent until proven guilty are somehow deserving of punishment...

http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights...constitutional

Pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail are regularly given moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food. Detainees with serious medical, mental health and dental needs receive inadequate care, and they are routinely denied beds or bunks at intake, forcing them to sleep on the floor. Additionally, severe overcrowding in three of the jail's facilities has created extremely dangerous environments by significantly increasing the potential for violence among inmates.

This is an offense to human dignity. It would be shameful to treat animals the way this man is treating the people in his custody. By taking their liberty these persons are not legally allowed to provide for themselves and so it is his responsibility to provide sufficient food shelter and other care. They are not sentenced to food poisoning, starvation, lack of sleep or overcrowding sufficient to make Calcutta look like Montana.

Sixth, I'd like to see a citation for you cable tv story.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

And in answer to the original question, as ID cards are now NOT happening in the UK, same way I always have

[mvisconte]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Thanks for proving precisely where on the wingnut spectrum you are.

Hunh... and your experience bar said "plays nicely with others".

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, it's called ethics.

Yes. And you should get some. And while you're at it, I think they're having a sale on character... you can exchange the one you picked from the dust bin. ;-)

[QUOTE=DawnFalcon;924593]
And again, you evidently have not heard that there are these things called "legal immigrants" and "permanently residents", who are not citizens, but are not supposed to be thrown out of the country.[/quotes]

I am sooo glad that you have such a (childlike) grasp on the issues in our country. Perhaps you'd like to run it for a while? Oh wait, we're already headed on a juggernaut into the can, so you're help would not be required. That, and, you're not a citizen, and therefore not qualified to run, or comment, on the issues in our country. We already have enough bleeding-heart socialists waiting to tap the nails for us.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

What a surprise. Oh, have a tissue to wipe up the frothing at your mouth.

That wouldn't be where I'd wipe. Have your tissue back now.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes.

Strange, "you and your kind" can't usually stop at one word.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, you and your kind.

Ah, I knew it. There are words in there somewhere... keep trying, you'll free some up.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, that's just the standard histrionic crap which you throw up at anyone who disagrees with you, in the hope that it actually has some bearing on anything they've said. I have not and will not take any position on illegal immigrants in this thread, so your attack is and can only be on legal immigrants.

Oh, now that just the standard blather you spew when you don't really have any points.

You are quite humourous. I will not take any position on your wanting to limit the conversation to a gleaned grain of sand about an issue that you have no idea about much less any business in commenting on. Why should I limit myself to your frothing when there are plenty of facts out there. You should try some, they'll cut down on the gas.

So, it's perfectly all right if we want to pass laws that will do what the national government was supposed to be doing all along in regards to ILLEGAL immigrants? How kind of you. I'll pass that along. Between you and me, I don't have a problem with legal immigrants. It's the illegal ones, and they need to be deported. After which, everyone, including legal immigrants, will be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

Of course, that's pretty much what I see here anyway. I sure hope that's environmentally-safe blather, because you're generating plenty of it. Hm... from the smell, it would be good on the crops in moderation. Trouble is, there never is moderation with your sort. You know, I can see why you do it now... baseless, rambling, spewing can be fun.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I'll pass that along.

You seem to be doing fine now... it would be nicer if you wouldn't consume it first before passing.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

...And we find out that you know precisely NOTHING about the process. What a surprise!

[mvisconte]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

*sigh* Where to start, My sig is from the pirates of penzance where the pirate king sings about how as a pirate he's far more honest than people in so-called respectable professions who's dirty work rise to extreme measures.

I know. gilbert and sillivan. Excellent opera. I cut my teeth on it for a while. It's probably my favorite.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Second we didn't raise worms or men, I'm a woman.

I ask a thousand pardons. It was not obvious to me from the name alone.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Third, you listed some unpleasant things for you ... ... apples and oranges.

True. Taken out of context purposely but I see now that you want to have an intelligent conversation. I shall try to limit my hyperbole. (try).

Originally Posted by Iphinome

... what i argued against was making something unpleasant just for the sake of doing so. I'm speaking of the acts of a bully, you do see the difference do you not? ... Now let me ask you this, does pink underwear serve a practical purpose that wouldn't be served by red blue green or white underwear?

1) Yes, I know that.
2) Yes.
3) Hm... yes, I think it does. The context there is that these people were sent to prison for horrible acts that they committed. They have lost (hopefully for the time being) their right to mix in the humane humans. As many inhabitants of jails have to real plans or interest in doing anything but "time", this is a further reminder that they are separated for a reason. I truly don't see how it harms them. If it caused them physical harm, I would be against it. If I considered it torture, I would be against it. I am not against it.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Fourth, I did not mention prison, a sheriff does not run a prison, such a person runs a jail. They are not the same thing. A jail is for petty offenders with short sentences and persons awaiting trial who have not posted a bond. A drunk who pees on your car goes to jail, a rapist goes to prison after a fair trial and a conviction. In neither case is the sentence embarrassment, it is imprisonment.

Good point. Although my understanding is that these individuals have done enough to warrent being treated this way. I could be wrong, but I am afraid that I still would not see the harm in pink undies.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Fifth, I'm not sure locking up all the lawyers would be a bad thing but a lawyer does not prepare a defense alone and a citizen does have a right to to argue motions pro-se. One of the requirements to be competent to stand trial is the ability to assist in your own defense. And even if you thought persons who are innocent until proven guilty are somehow deserving of punishment...

http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights...constitutional

Although I don't consider the ACLU as a credible source, I understand your concerns. You might as well quote from Chairman Mao or Geobbels -- as far as I'm concerned (with their current record), it's propaganda. Perhaps we could just lock up the ACLU lawyers (I am sorry, I couldn't resist a punch line). Yes, a citizen does have a right to prepare a defense, and to have legal counsel should s/he not be able to afford one. Time honored tradition. Good thing. However, in the current practice of the legal system, too many lawyers getting too many guilty people off the hook, and also bankrupting good people, leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. We're arguing separate points here.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

This is an offense to human dignity. It would be shameful to treat animals the way this man is treating the people in his custody. By taking their liberty these persons are not legally allowed to provide for themselves and so it is his responsibility to provide sufficient food shelter and other care. They are not sentenced to food poisoning, starvation, lack of sleep or overcrowding sufficient to make Calcutta look like Montana.

Getting rapists off Scot-free is shameful. Getting child molesters off with a slap on the wrist is an offense to human dignity. I think that the prisoners would get over having to wear pink undies. Taking the liberty of persons awaiting trial that have not posted bond is unfortunate... nothing more. There are plenty of crooked lawyers who will argue to a judge that just because their "client" is a previous felon, has been in a violent confrontation, or has already fled prosecution on several occasions, that he really IS good enough to be released on reduced bail or his own recognizance.

Food poisoning is icky. Starvation is criminal. Lack of medical care for serious issues should be looked into, and fixed from some outside humanitarian organization if they can keep it in their pants enough to treat those who are seriously suffering, and not argue that denying the Playboy Channel is cruel and unusual. I don't have a lot of sympathy for those kinds of organizations.

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Sixth, I'd like to see a citation for you cable tv story.

Artistic license.


Thank you for an intelligent and non-inflamatory discussion.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by mvisconte

I am sooo glad that you have such a (childlike) grasp on the issues in our country.

So it's childlike to realise there's these things called legal immigrants?
Well, you've just called your grasp of the issues sub-childlike. Which I fully agree with you is entirely accurate.

We already have enough bleeding-heart socialists waiting to tap the nails for us.

Oh look, you're making a fool of yourself assuming what my political views are.

Strange, "you and your kind" can't usually stop at one word.

And what is my kind, precisely? In the interests of you demonstrating how wrong you can be?

You are quite humourous.

Well, at least I'm not funny in the head like you.

So, it's perfectly all right if we want to pass laws that will do what the national government was supposed to be doing all along in regards to ILLEGAL immigrants?

According to your constitution, erm...no.

Between you and me, I don't have a problem with legal immigrants.

You're supporting a law which is going to land a lot of them in entirely unnecessary legal trouble. So... no, you're just lying. One way or another.

Trouble is, there never is moderation with your sort.

Again, what "sort" am I? (Hint: my basic political philosophy is one I share with Lincoln and Jefferson)

[kindlekitten]

I don't understand the issue or the problem. as a legal resident of a foreign country I was required to carry the appropriate identification on my person at all times. I went out of my way to not violate any laws or customs, did not become a burden or drain on the local economy. I was a grateful guest in that country and conducted myself accordingly. why should any non-legal resident be treated any differently here?