Immigrants vs. Illegal Aliens

I don't like arguing for police power really, but in this ONE INSTANCE i can justify a heavier hand, and that's when all the sudden they are instructed to look the other by judicial activist globalists on the bench.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But; what relevance does that have?
Click to expand...

I explained it to you. What relevance do you believe it has? Why is that an odd question to you? If I said you were ignoring the ruling Citizens' United v FEC (that's just off the top of my head, maybe it is relevant in some way) wouldn't you ask what relevance it has?

The court rejected the suit because it involved enforcement of the criminal violations of the INA and the locals did not want to be involved in enforcement of the civil violations of the INA. The court drew a line, indicating that the locals could not enforce civil violations and that illegal presence was not probable cause of illegal entry.

Those parts are relevant to the Arizona law. Though, it is relevant to the Az law, the fact that the court ruled that the locals could enforce criminal violations and therefore found in favor of the defendants, is not relevant to my arguments on the Az law. I have not argued against enforcement of the criminal parts of the INA.

You are just grasping at straws in Gonzales v Peoria and since you know that you evade my legitimate question.
 
RStringfield said:
I explained it to you. What relevance do you believe it has? Why is that an odd question to you? If I said you were ignoring the ruling Citizens' United v FEC (that's just off the top of my head, maybe it is relevant in some way) wouldn't you ask what relevance it has?

The court rejected the suit because it involved enforcement of the criminal violations of the INA and the locals did not want to be involved in enforcement of the civil violations of the INA. The court drew a line, indicating that the locals could not enforce civil violations and that illegal presence was not probable cause of illegal entry.

Those parts are relevant to the Arizona law. Though, it is relevant to the Az law, the fact that the court ruled that the locals could enforce criminal violations and therefore found in favor of the defendants, is not relevant to my arguments on the Az law. I have not argued against enforcement of the criminal parts of the INA.

You are just grasping at straws in Gonzales v Peoria and since you know that you evade my legitimate question.
Click to expand...

And what relevance did this have? :good4u:
 
It proves you are chicken shit that CAN NOT back up your assertions against me. You claimed I was forgetting that the court sided with the defendants. Where have I done so? I asked you to clarify and you do nothing but duck and dodge, while looking for some red herring to avoid admitting your error.
 
RStringfield said:
It proves you are chicken shit that CAN NOT back up your assertions against me. You claimed I was forgetting that the court sided with the defendants. Where have I done so? I asked you to clarify and you do nothing but duck and dodge, while looking for some red herring to avoid admitting your error.
Click to expand...

And this is relevant.................................................how?? :good4u:
 
496.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top