The AZ illegals just got screwed

RStringfield said:
You are an idiot. Just because they can, possibly, defend themselves does not mean they are going to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Now you're clutching at straws; becuase first you said:
"Only upon the defendants request and only if the court believes you can do so sufficiently. Given the inability to speak the language and the low education level of most illegal immigrants I doubt the court is gonna let many of the few that requests defend themselves."

My response was:
"And how are they going to stop them and you seem to have forgotten about Court appointed interpreters. You fail"

And now you want to go the route that they're going to do nothing to defend themselves. How many more strawmen are you going to create, in an attempt to bolster your lost cause?

If you don't show up for a civil case the court is not going to wait for you. A criminal trial of a defendant in absentia is a violation of western legal customs and virtually unheard of. Again, what rock have you been living under? They will issue a bench warrant and wait until the defendant is present.
Click to expand...

This has nothing do to with what was presented.
You asked:
"And you are not even guaranteed your own legal counsel in a civil case."

To which I responded:
"Since when??"

And then you brought up something about absentia, which wasn't being discussed. Please try and stay on task. :good4u:
 
RStringfield said:
Umm, all immigrants illegal or otherwise come in over a border.

:rolleyes:

You mean to say they entered illegally. I would not say the vast majority. The majority, yes. So?



It is not a crime to be illegally present. It's a civil violation of the law. You can argue that the earth is flat all you want. It is not going to make it true.
Click to expand...

Not anymore in Arizona, it isn't.
 
Ice Dancer said:
This guy's an ass! A civil violation is STILL A CRIME! It's distinction is only in how it will be legally addressed...
Click to expand...

OH-He knows; but he just doesn't want to admit that he's wrong and that all he did was waste his time trying to argue somethng that he now can't defend.
 
You posted:
RStringfield said:
Umm, all immigrants illegal or otherwise come in over a border.

:rolleyes:

You mean to say they entered illegally. I would not say the vast majority. The majority, yes. So?



It is not a crime to be illegally present. It's a civil violation of the law. You can argue that the earth is flat all you want. It is not going to make it true.
Click to expand...

To which I replied:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Not anymore in Arizona, it isn't.
Click to expand...

And you have now somehow tried to shift this from illegal immigration to legal immigration.
RStringfield said:
And so, this is more than just enforcing federal law as many have claimed. It is an attempt to regulate immigration.
Click to expand...

You truly need to be assigned someone to watch over you, just so you don't harm yourself or anyone else.

But; since you have made several attempts, recently, to erect strawmen to defend your thinking, this only shows that you have failed miserably. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Now you're clutching at straws; becuase first you said


"Only upon the defendants request
Click to expand...


I am clutching at straws because at first I said the same thing?

USFREEDOM911 said:
And now you want to go the route that they're going to do nothing to defend themselves. How many more strawmen are you going to create, in an attempt to bolster your lost cause?
Click to expand...

They do not have to try their own case. Only if they request to defend themselves are they going to be asked to do so. Otherwise, the court will appoint them an attorney.


This has nothing do to with what was presented.
You asked:
"And you are not even guaranteed your own legal counsel in a civil case."

To which I responded:
"Since when??"

And then you brought up something about absentia, which wasn't being discussed. Please try and stay on task. :good4u:
Click to expand...

Nope, that's what I meant. Maybe you misunderstood.

In a civil case you don't enjoy the same rights to hear and answer the evidence against you. If you don't show up they do not care. They will go on without you and unless the plaintiffs case is total crap they are probably going to find against you. In a criminal trial they will not try you without your presence.

This adds a burden to the state by making it impossible to even issue a deportation order until the immigrant can be apprehended. That's why it is a civil matter.
 
Here is some reading for the retards...

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/civil_offense_crime.htm

A civil offense is an infraction of a law that is not a crime. This may be something like a routine traffic offense such as speeding. The only penalty for a civil offense is a fine. A crime is a violation of the law that is punishable by a fine or a jail sentence. A Class Three or Class Four misdemeanor in Virginia is only punishable by a fine. These may be violations of noise ordinances or other offenses not involving injuries to other persons or their property. A Class One misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. A Class Two misdemeanors are punishable by 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Felonies are punishable by one or more years in prison and fines of up to $100,000.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime"]Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Crimes are generally considered offenses against the public or the state, distinguished from torts which are offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action.
 
RStringfield said:
I am clutching at straws because at first I said the same thing?



They do not have to try their own case. Only if they request to defend themselves are they going to be asked to do so. Otherwise, the court will appoint them an attorney.




Nope, that's what I meant. Maybe you misunderstood.

In a civil case you don't enjoy the same rights to hear and answer the evidence against you. If you don't show up they do not care. They will go on without you and unless the plaintiffs case is total crap they are probably going to find against you. In a criminal trial they will not try you without your presence.

This adds a burden to the state by making it impossible to even issue a deportation order until the immigrant can be apprehended. That's why it is a civil matter.
Click to expand...

I'm through with this discussion with you; because of a couple of reasons:
1. You can't be taught to sing.
2. All of your recent "posts" have been nothing but strawmen
3. When you continue with an ongoing discussion, you have started to throw in things that had nothing at all to do with the discussion.

The law is going to stay in affect, your conspiracy theories is just paranoia on your part, and all of your gnashing of teeth and flinging ashes isn't going to do anything to get you your way.

Go ahead and have the last word; because I know it will make you feel important. :good4u:
 
You don't want to continue because your ass is red and you don't want your face to match by admitting your errors.

It is doubtful this law will even take effect. But the courts are going to have the last word, or possibly congress, regardless.
 
You claim that a trial in absentia was not part of the discussion, but then how do you explain this...

I said....
You don't show up, they are going to issue a deportation order.

You said....
Same as any other case, where you don't show up; so what's your point?

...

Seems pretty obvious you thought that a criminal case could proceed the same as a civil case would without the defendant's presence. I don't see what else could have caused you to make such an absurd response.

Hope your vagina stops hurting.
 
RStringfield said:
You claim that a trial in absentia was not part of the discussion, but then how do you explain this...

I said....
You don't show up, they are going to issue a deportation order.

You said....
Same as any other case, where you don't show up; so what's your point?

...

Seems pretty obvious you thought that a criminal case could proceed the same as a civil case would without the defendant's presence. I don't see what else could have caused you to make such an absurd response.

Hope your vagina stops hurting.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Since you can't logically or factually disprove what I posted on the latter subject, you're just pushing your opinion as fact...which doesn't cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...
Again, its not up to me to disprove your opinion, but your personal responsibility to prove it. Why do you loathe personal responsibility Libbie?
 
AssHatZombie said:
When the feds fail to repel invasion,

The people are authorized to protect themselves
Click to expand...

This is possibly a valid argument, to a degree, but it still does not work in Arizona, IMO. The fact that the feds have not done an adequate job in enforcing its own laws means it can not be said to "occupy the field" in enforcement of federal laws on immigration. However, it has occupied the field in legislating the penalties of violation of its immigration laws.

An example...

The feds have a law concerning treason and setting its punishments. If someone violates that law and the Feds do not make adequate attempts to arrest violators of the law, the states could arrest violators, so long as they don't interfere with the feds in doing that. But they cannot pass a law saying that Obama supporters violate the law. They can enforce the regulations they cannot write their own regulations.

Pennsylvania v Nelson...

When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

...

I believe this precedent applies against the Arizona law because it clearly attempts to create penalties beyond what Congress has deemed fit. The states cannot just argue that their laws are justified because federal law is not tough enough.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????.....and you don't consider that fearmongering?......35 people out of one and a half million were required to prove they were citizens?....omigorsh, the sky is falling!.......what I want to know is this.....were the other one million, four hundred thousand, nine hundred sixty five people sent back home or were they allowed to remain here illegally?.....
Click to expand...

Stop acting like an asshole.....what I showed was DOCUMENTED FACT.....actions that have already happened. The video was an example of the hundered some odd other cases. YOU cannot deny this, so you blather some BS to try and distort the reality.

Let it happen to your dopey ass, or some friend/relative and then let me see you shrug it off after spending time in lock up.

Bottom line: Arizona's new law just opens up the window for more of these abuses....and pointing that out just takes the wind out of the "anti-big gov't" blowhards. Deal with it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Poor sissie. (stop telling me about your pissing your pants, I don't want to know)Once again you've gotten yourself all worked up and it looks like you're going to cry, some more.

You're only presenting her side of the story, where's the side that might explain why the officer thought she was an illegal; other then that she had a warrent.

A warrant for an unpaid parking ticket that should at best got her car towed (she had her license and registration)....the cop just saw brown skin and went off the rails...and HE WAS WRONG. Also, this was just ONE of over 100 cases....had you paid attention, you'd have known this.

Keep trying sissie and maybe one day you'll get it right.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should grow up and stop calling your sister "sissie"....she's got to be over 30 by now. And I got it right...you just can't deal with it.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Since you can't logically or factually disprove what I posted on the latter subject, you're just pushing your opinion as fact...which doesn't cut it in the real world.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Again, its not up to me to disprove your opinion, but your personal responsibility to prove it. Why do you loathe personal responsibility Libbie?
Click to expand...

Since I've linked information that documents what I'm talking about, it's not just my "opinion". Only a stubborn fool like you would pretend otherwise.

Grow the fuck up, Southy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top