The AZ illegals just got screwed

[Sammy Jankis]

Do you really believe this is a valid response? Illegal entry and illegal presence are not the same thing. The violations are very very different. To pretend otherwise is absurd. You continue to ignore the differences based on your own desire to play dumb. The truth does not help you and so you ignore it.

It is a valid response.

Haranging about the difference between presence and entry is a constipated niggling exercize of a devout moron. Congratulations on fitting into that category.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And your right....the warrant required arrest....my error. What the arrest for an unpaid parking ticket DID NOT require was detainment for immigration violation, as the woman was an American citizen with a driver's license (proper ID).

And of course, you ignore the information pointing to about 100 other similar cases where people of brown skin were illegally detained DESPITE having immediate proof of their citizenship.

THIS IS PROOF THAT ABUSES OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES OCCUR TO A SPECIFIC GROUP OF AMERICANS...AND THIS IS BEFORE THE ARIZONA LAW COMES INTO AFFECT, WHICH "LEGALIZES" SUCH ACTIONS.

But do continue to deny it, Tempie. Now, say something stupid or crow about my error, just as I predicted.

But hey, you caught me in an error, so your pea brain will focus on this for God knows how long...as if it excuses your history of willfull ignorance and insipid stubborness. Carry on.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Taichi is declared permanent loser for all time.

 

[Timshel]

It is a valid response.

Haranging about the difference between presence and entry is a constipated niggling exercize of a devout moron. Congratulations on fitting into that category.

Much like pointing out the difference between jaywalking and murder is a trivial. They are all criminals. Shoot em on site.

I am sorry, dumbfuck, but we have different levels of legal violations for a reason. I have already pointed out why there are differences between illegal entry and presence.

It is not a small point. One is a willful criminal act and the other is failure to comply with some administrative requirement. The failure to comply may be intentional in most cases (as I noted) but it is reasonable to assume that someone may have fell out of compliance without intent. Intent is going to be hard to prove. So instead, we treat it as a lesser offense (which it is) and deport them. It would be stupid to require the state to prove intent when you don't want to give them jail time anyway. That's why it is a civil offense.

But it is not okay to go around making warrantless arrests based on suspicion of a civil violation of the law. That is absurd and should be obscene to anyone that cherishes liberty.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Much like pointing out the difference between jaywalking and murder is a trivial. They are all criminals. Shoot em on site.

I am sorry, dumbfuck, but we have different levels of legal violations for a reason. I have already pointed out why there are differences between illegal entry and presence.

But that difference is meaningless.

It is not a small point. One is a willful criminal act and the other is failure to comply with some administrative requirement. The failure to comply may be intentional in most cases (as I noted) but it is reasonable to assume that someone may have fell out of compliance without intent. Intent is going to be hard to prove. So instead, we treat it as a lesser offense (which it is) and deport them. It would be stupid to require the state to prove intent when you don't want to give them jail time anyway. That's why it is a civil offense.

But it is not okay to go around making warrantless arrests based on suspicion of a civil violation of the law. That is absurd and should be obscene to anyone that cherishes liberty.

They have to have a legal contact first. read up. sped.

 

[Timshel]

But that difference is meaningless.

The difference between murder and speeding is meaningless? Okay, if you say so nAHZi.

They have to have a legal contact first. read up. sped.

So? They stop them for a traffic violation and then arrest them based on suspicion of a civil violation of the law. How does that change anything?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The difference between murder and speeding is meaningless? Okay, if you say so nAHZi.

no. that's just your poorly chosen and inept metaphor.

So? They stop them for a traffic violation and then arrest them based on suspicion of a civil violation of the law. How does that change anything?

It doesn't. it remains perfectly legal.

 

[DamnYankee]

You are an idiot.

Ad hom.

 

[Timshel]

no. that's just your poorly chosen and inept metaphor.

One's a crime the other is a civil violation. I thought the distinctions were trivial. That is what you retards have argued.

It doesn't. it remains perfectly legal.

Nope. The feds can't arrest on suspicion of a civil violation.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

One's a crime the other is a civil violation. I thought the distinctions were trivial. That is what you retards have argued.

Yeah. Those distinctions are trivial.

Nope. The feds can't arrest on suspicion of a civil violation.

AZ cops can.

 

[Timshel]

Yeah. Those distinctions are trivial.

Round and round you go. The distinctions between murder and speeding are trivial?

AZ cops can.

The power won't ever go into effect. It will be shot down because our courts, generally, do care about the distinctions between murder and speeding. They, generally, care about protecting citizens from the state. They understand why the protections are there and will maintain them against the idiot masses that spread false fears about the threats posed by a simple civil violation of the law.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Round and round you go. The distinctions between murder and speeding are trivial?

That's just a bad metaphor you're stuck on.

The power won't ever go into effect. It will be shot down because our courts, generally, do care about the distinctions between murder and speeding. They, generally, care about protecting citizens from the state. They understand why the protections are there and will maintain them against the idiot masses that spread false fears about the threats posed by a simple civil violation of the law.

But in this case they will respect the people and their obvious support of arizona policy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The power won't ever go into effect. It will be shot down because our courts, generally, do care about the distinctions between murder and speeding. They, generally, care about protecting citizens from the state. They understand why the protections are there and will maintain them against the idiot masses that spread false fears about the threats posed by a simple civil violation of the law.

dude, please tell me you're not trusting the courts to side with the law over the masses.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Taichi is declared permanent loser for all time.

Says the man with his ass in his hat.

Let me know when you have the brains or the cojones to actually have an honest debate with me. Until then, keep throwing rocks.

 

[Timshel]

dude, please tell me you're not trusting the courts to side with the law over the masses.

I am not sure what you mean. The masses (in Arizona at least) and the law are on the same side. I think the court will consider the distinctions. It will be a topic. I do not know which way they will rule.

I think the way it is going to shake out, is the law will be blocked in the courts. In the meantime the Feds will get off the ball and try to do more to occupy the field. My guess, is the courts will not allow the warrantless arrests, not without probable cause of a crime. I doubt the law will ever be put into any effect as it is now written.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

dude, please tell me you're not trusting the courts to side with the law over the masses.

Right. They're too busy making sure corporations have human rights.