Sotomayor: Labeling Illegal Immigrants Criminals Is Insulting

[jimnyc]

Let me repeat that:

Sotomayor: Labeling Illegal Immigrants Criminals Is Insulting

Got that now? And this is a SUPREME court judge? If they are here ILLEGALLY - it IS criminal, by the very definition and any other way you slice it. Even if you support them, love them - it's STILL criminal. How can someone say it's insulting when another appropriately labels them as such? They want us to call them "undocumented" immigrants so as not to insult? How about they call it what it is, so as not to insult me? Anyone wonder how she would decide on major cases involving illegals? It's sad that many in our nation ignore our laws and constitution, and now it's reached the highest court in the land.


NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who grew up poor in New York City, described Monday how she navigated new worlds of Ivy League universities and the nation’s highest court.

Sotomayor told students at Yale University that she has a competitive drive to improve herself and isn’t afraid to ask questions.

Sotomayor, the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court, said she didn’t even know what an Ivy League college was when a friend suggested she apply. She wound up attending Princeton and Yale Law School.

On the Supreme Court since 2009, Sotomayor said it was tough at first as justices made references that went over her head. She said joining the high court amounted to joining an ongoing conversation among justices who had served for years.

“I figure I may not be the smartest judge on the court but I’m going to be a competent justice,” she said. “I’m going to try to be the best I can and each year I think my opinions have been getting better. And I’m working at finding my voice a little bit.”

Sotomayor was asked at a talk at Yale Law School later in the day about her use of the term “undocumented immigrants” rather than the traditional illegal alien. Sotomayor characterized the issue as a regulatory problem and said labeling immigrants criminals seemed insulting to her.

“I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation,” Sotomayor said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-sotomayor-describes-navigating-worlds-22351647

[aboutime]

Let me repeat that:

Sotomayor: Labeling Illegal Immigrants Criminals Is Insulting

Got that now? And this is a SUPREME court judge? If they are here ILLEGALLY - it IS criminal, by the very definition and any other way you slice it. Even if you support them, love them - it's STILL criminal. How can someone say it's insulting when another appropriately labels them as such? They want us to call them "undocumented" immigrants so as not to insult? How about they call it what it is, so as not to insult me? Anyone wonder how she would decide on major cases involving illegals? It's sad that many in our nation ignore our laws and constitution, and now it's reached the highest court in the land.



http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/nyc-public-school-kids-new-holidays-article-1.1601237



She probably takes it personally since...her FAMILY, and FRIENDS are much more important than U.S. Laws, and the CONSTITUTION she's expected to defend.

[logroller]

She probably takes it personally since...her FAMILY, and FRIENDS are much more important than U.S. Laws, and the CONSTITUTION she's expected to defend.

Her family is from Puerto Rico.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Her family is from Puerto Rico. SO WHAT? She is a Supreme Court Justice and should not be holding such a disrespectful view of our laws. She is a cancer in the court just like all the lousy liberals are. Kagan is as well. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

SO WHAT? She is a Supreme Court Justice and should not be holding such a disrespectful view of our laws. She is a cancer in the court just like all the lousy liberals are. Kagan is as well. -Tyr

That's how I feel. Whether she knows illegals or not shouldn't matter. She isn't supposed to diminish our laws and talk about how our laws are "insulting". I personally find it insulting that she said this. Now ANY case she sits in on that has anything to do with immigration - IMO she should recuse herself, but we know she won't.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's how I feel. Whether she knows illegals or not shouldn't matter. She isn't supposed to diminish our laws and talk about how our laws are "insulting". I personally find it insulting that she said this. Now ANY case she sits in on that has anything to do with immigration - IMO she should recuse herself, but we know she won't. For a her to recuse herself she would first have to have integrity and honor, she like Kagan has none! Kagan proved you could be a lousy dishonorable Justice and get praise and be rewarded for it! Roberts did too so I am not just picking on the usual liberal scum there. All three of them should be in prison IMHO. THEY SWEAR AN OATH WHICH THEY BREAK AS IF IT WAS NOTHING.-TYR

[tailfins]

That's how I feel. Whether she knows illegals or not shouldn't matter. She isn't supposed to diminish our laws and talk about how our laws are "insulting". I personally find it insulting that she said this. Now ANY case she sits in on that has anything to do with immigration - IMO she should recuse herself, but we know she won't.

Let's meet her half way and start using the term "counterfeit documented immigrants". I will join her in congratulating those who are here illegally that DON'T commit document fraud. However, if we establish that document fraud can be overlooked, can I begin using counterfeit license plates on my car? For good measure all bad check convictions should be overturned based on the new precedent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let's meet her half way and start using the term "counterfeit documented immigrants". I will join her in congratulating those who are here illegally that DON'T commit document fraud. However, if we establish that document fraud can be overlooked, can I begin using counterfeit license plates on my car? For good measure all bad check convictions should be overturned based on the new precedent. That is exactly what her words express. A disdain for the laws of this nation! This is the liberal/dem way. Should we ever have (God forbid) a civil war here I know who should receive true justice. Those that masquerade as decent people to get power positions and then use those positions to help destroy our Constitution, laws and justice. bamscum has corrupted our government like no other in history!!! He was placed there to do just that.. --Tyr

[logroller]

SO WHAT? She is a Supreme Court Justice and should not be holding such a disrespectful view of our laws. She is a cancer in the court just like all the lousy liberals are. Kagan is as well. -Tyr
so... immigration-wise,Puerto Ricans are citizens. And at's post is predicated upon her being Hispanic, thus her family and friends are illegals, and less than. That's what she means when she said,
“I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation,” Sotomayor said.

but you tell me, is a cancer less than a human being?

[aboutime]

so... immigration-wise,Puerto Ricans are citizens. And at's post is predicated upon her being Hispanic, thus her family and friends are illegals, and less than. That's what she means when she said,
“I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation,” Sotomayor said.

but you tell me, is a cancer less than a human being?


Log. You can defend her in any way you wish, and sound like you have. I didn't intentionally twist any words, distort anything I said, or change the context of what I said to Get Your Approval.
You claim to be knowledgeable about such things...but expose yourself as the hypocrite you are, in order to please, and impress yourself. If you dislike what I say. Tough.
You sound more, and more like Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharp(less)ton every time you post.

[logroller]

Log. You can defend her in any way you wish, and sound like you have. I didn't intentionally twist any words, distort anything I said, or change the context of what I said to Get Your Approval.
You claim to be knowledgeable about such things...but expose yourself as the hypocrite you are, in order to please, and impress yourself. If you dislike what I say. Tough.
You sound more, and more like Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharp(less)ton every time you post.
You'd have to understand words to intentionally twist them-- you're just ignorant and, based on the racist overtures of your posts, you're a bigot too.

[aboutime]

You'd have to understand words to intentionally twist them-- you're just ignorant and, based on the racist overtures of your posts, you're a bigot too.


Whatever you say, oh confused admin member. Remember. Everyone else is reading your words that intentionally are twisted, and taken out of context...whenever you post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Log. You can defend her in any way you wish, and sound like you have. I didn't intentionally twist any words, distort anything I said, or change the context of what I said to Get Your Approval.
You claim to be knowledgeable about such things...but expose yourself as the hypocrite you are, in order to please, and impress yourself. If you dislike what I say. Tough.
You sound more, and more like Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharp(less)ton every time you post. SO YOU TOO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD--- ILLEGAL.


Sotomayor: Labeling Illegal Immigrants Criminals Is Insulting DOES NOT MATTER A DAMN WHETHER ITS AN INSULT OR NOT. It is the TRUTH. She has no right to show utter contempt for the law as a sitting Supreme Court Justice . She should have to face some kind of punishment for her actions . Her words are insulting to every person that seeks justice under the law. Her words show a bias the size of Texas IMHO. Her , Kagan and Gindog are all three political minded dishonorable pieces of shit that act with leftist/ dem politics considered first and foremost instead of true justice IMHO. -Tyr

[logroller]

Whatever you say, oh confused admin member. Remember. Everyone else is reading your words that intentionally are twisted, and taken out of context...whenever you post.
I proffered verifiable facts and a quote from the OP in support of my argument. As far as twisting words, show me what word I used that you feel I twisted and I'll see if I can't find an English to retardese translation for you.

Btw I'm staff, not admin-- thanks for, yet again, proving yourself ignorant.

[logroller]

SO YOU TOO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD--- ILLEGAL.

DOES NOT MATTER A DAMN WHETHER ITS AN INSULT OR NOT. It is the TRUTH. She has no right to show utter contempt for the law as a sitting Supreme Court Justice . She should have to face some kind of punishment for her actions . Her words are insulting to every person that seeks justice under the law. Her words show a bias the size of Texas IMHO. Her , Kagan and Gindog are all three political minded dishonorable pieces of shit that act with leftist/ dem politics considered first and foremost instead of true justice IMHO. -Tyr
Sotomayer didn't say that-- her response was quoted. So you should take that up with the author who wrote the article, and demand the prosecution of the journalist for spreading such lies.
At least you backed off the rhetorical propaganda that prove her actual comment true whilst you condone and defend bigoted assumptions.

[aboutime]

I proffered verifiable facts and a quote from the OP in support of my argument. As far as twisting words, show me what word I used that you feel I twisted and I'll see if I can't find an English to retardese translation for you.

Btw I'm staff, not admin-- thanks for, yet again, proving yourself ignorant.



Pick a letter from A to Z.

By the way. I have attempted to place you on Ignore, to cease your patronizing. But...since you are Admin. You are stuck with whatever answers I choose to direct your way. LIFE'S A BEACH.

[jimnyc]

Didn't anyone notice that the link for the article in my opening post was wrong? Somehow I pasted in the link to the article about new school holidays in NYC. I think. I don't know what the hell I did. I do know I just clicked on the link to read it again and after a few sentences, I was like WTF?? Anyway, here's the link. I'm also going to edit the link in my original post, not to be sneaky, but to ensure that it gets appropriate credit.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-sotomayor-describes-navigating-worlds-22351647

[aboutime]

Pick a letter from A to Z.

By the way. I have attempted to place you on Ignore, to cease your patronizing. But...since you are Admin. You are stuck with whatever answers I choose to direct your way. LIFE'S A BEACH.


I stand corrected. But everything I said...STILL APPLIES.

[Drummond]

I take it that there are efforts being made to have this individual disbarred ?

If not -- why not ??

It can make not the slightest degree of sense to tolerate this person's continuation in a position she fundamentally disgraces !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I take it that there are efforts being made to have this individual disbarred ?

If not -- why not ??

It can make not the slightest degree of sense to tolerate this person's continuation in a position she fundamentally disgraces ! United States Supreme court Justices are appointed for life. Nothing short of her murdering somebody or treason can affect her as far as I know. That's the reason both political parties are supposed to pick the most honest, well qualified candidate and not sit an agenda driven ass like the bamscum did with Kagan for sure. She was planted there to upheld bamcare when the case got there, tis why she refused to recuse herself!!!! -Tyr

[aboutime]

I take it that there are efforts being made to have this individual disbarred ?

If not -- why not ??

It can make not the slightest degree of sense to tolerate this person's continuation in a position she fundamentally disgraces !


Sir Drummond. Unfortunately...that Lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Judges is the ONE big mistake our FOUNDING FATHERS seemed to make, or overlook when they crafted our constitution.

Consequently. Such appointments are, can, and have been made by BOTH political parties...nominated by SELFISH President's who place the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, and the NATION second to their personal desires.

Not many Americans are aware of how the BELOVED "FDR" during WWII attempted to LOAD the Court with a higher number of LIBERAL appointments that would do his bidding, and his will.
Thankfully. That never took place.
So now. We have the same problem with POLITICAL appointee's...though they are DENIED by the Present Occupant of the GRAY HOUSE, and the LIBERAL members of Congress who need to CHEAT, ROB, STEAL, and DESTROY everything in America to SUIT THEIR IGNORANCE.

[Drummond]

United States Supreme court Justices are appointed for life. Nothing short of her murdering somebody or treason can affect her as far as I know. That's the reason both political parties are supposed to pick the most honest, well qualified candidate and not sit an agenda driven ass like the bamscum did with Kagan for sure. She was planted there to upheld bamcare when the case got there, tis why she refused to recuse herself!!!! -Tyr

Tyr, Aboutime ... that's incredible.

So far as I know (maybe I need to check to be certain) there is no such thing in the British judicial system that makes it possible for a judge's appointment to be 'for life'. In fact, our top judges are even assigned mandatory retirement dates !! See the table this link provides for our Supreme Court judges ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom


As of 1 October 2013, the justices, in order of seniority, are as follows:
<tbody>
Name
Born
Alma mater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater)
Invested
Mandatory
retirement
Prior senior judicial roles


Lord Reed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reed,_Lord_Reed)
7 September 1956
(age 57)
University of Edinburgh School of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Edinburgh_School_of_Law)
Balliol College, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balliol_College,_Oxford)
6 February 2012
7 September 2026
Senator of the College of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_of_the_College_of_Justice):
Inner House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_House) (2008–2012)
Outer House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_House) (1998–2008)


Lord Hodge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hodge,_Lord_Hodge)
19 May 1953
(age 60)
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_College,_Cambridge)
University of Edinburgh School of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Edinburgh_School_of_Law)
1 October 2013
19 May 2023
Senator of the College of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_of_the_College_of_Justice),
Outer House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_House) (2005–2013)


Lord Kerr
of Tonaghmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kerr,_Baron_Kerr_of_Tonaghmore)
22 February 1948
(age 65)
Queen's University Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_University_Belfast)
1 October 2009
22 February 2023
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary) (2009)
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chief_Justice_of_Northern_Ireland) (2004–2009)
Justice of the High Court (NI) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Northern_Ireland) (1993–2004)


Lord Wilson
of Culworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wilson,_Lord_Wilson_of_Culworth)
9 May 1945
(age 68)
Worcester College, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_College,_Oxford)
26 May 2011
9 May 2020
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (2005–2011)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), FD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Division) (1993–2005)


Lord Carnwath
of Notting Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Carnwath,_Lord_Carnwath_of_Notting_Hill)
15 March 1945
(age 68)
Trinity College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College,_Cambridge)
17 April 2012
15 March 2020
Senior President of Tribunals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_President_of_Tribunals) (2007–2012)
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (2002–2012)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), CD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_Division) (1994–2002)


Lady Hale
of Richmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Hale,_Baroness_Hale_of_Richmond)
(Deputy President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Unite d_Kingdom))
31 January 1945
(age 69)
Girton College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girton_College,_Cambridge)
1 October 2009
31 January 2020
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary) (2004–2009)
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (1999–2003)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), FD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Division) (1994–1999)


Lord Sumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption)
9 December 1948
(age 65)
Magdalen College, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_College,_Oxford)
1 January 2012
9 December 2018
None


Lord Hughes
of Ombersley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hughes,_Lord_Hughes_of_Ombersley)
11 August 1948
(age 65)
Van Mildert College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Mildert_College), Durham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University)
9 April 2013
11 August 2018
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (2006–2013)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), QBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Bench) (2004–2006) and FD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Division) (1997-2003)


Lord Mance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Mance,_Baron_Mance)
6 June 1943
(age 70)
University College, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College,_Oxford)
1 October 2009
6 June 2018
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary) (2005–2009)
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (1999–2005)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), QBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Bench) (1993–1999)


Lord Clarke
of Stone-cum-Ebony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Clarke,_Baron_Clarke_of_Stone-cum-Ebony)
13 May 1943
(age 70)
King's College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College,_Cambridge)
1 October 2009
13 May 2018
Master of the Rolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rolls) (2005–2009)
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (1998–2005)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), QBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Bench) (1993–1998)


Lord Neuberger
of Abbotsbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neuberger,_Baron_Neuberger_of_Abbotsbury)
(President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingd om))
10 January 1948
(age 66)
Christ Church, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church,_Oxford)
1 October 2012
10 January 2018
Master of the Rolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_the_Rolls) (2009–2012)
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary) (2007–2009)
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (2004–2007)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), CD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_Division) (1996–2004)


Lord Toulson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Toulson,_Lord_Toulson)
23 September 1946
(age 67)
Jesus College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_College,_Cambridge)
9 April 2013
23 September 2016
Lord Justice of Appeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Justice_of_Appeal) (2007–2013)
Justice of the High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_judge), QBD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Bench) (1996–2007)

</tbody>

[logroller]

Pick a letter from A to Z.

By the way. I have attempted to place you on Ignore, to cease your patronizing. But...since you are Admin. You are stuck with whatever answers I choose to direct your way. LIFE'S A BEACH.
'Q'; but I asked to a word. I suppose words are just a jumble of letters to you. There's always the option of just not pressing 'reply to post', regardless of whether you see it. But your ignore feature isn't going to stop you from trolling me into arguments nor me from seeing you do so.

[logroller]

United States Supreme court Justices are appointed for life. Nothing short of her murdering somebody or treason can affect her as far as I know. That's the reason both political parties are supposed to pick the most honest, well qualified candidate and not sit an agenda driven ass like the bamscum did with Kagan for sure. She was planted there to upheld bamcare when the case got there, tis why she refused to recuse herself!!!! -Tyr

Well, Obama just nominated her; the sitting of the Justices is done by consent of the Senate----to wit, During congressional testimony Kagan said to Congress that she wouldn't recuse herself from considering the healthcare law, before she was seated; so hardly was she dishonest on the matter.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, Obama just nominated her; the sitting of the Justices is done by consent of the Senate----to wit, During congressional testimony Kagan said to Congress that she wouldn't recuse herself from considering the healthcare law, before she was seated; so hardly was she dishonest on the matter.
She was picked by bamscum and installed by a dem controlled Senate. It was Dem political decision not a damn thing done to pick the best or a fair honest person. If you think it was you aren't very bright IMHO. I seriously doubt that you truly believe her to truly be an honorable person. -TYR

[fj1200]

I take it that there are efforts being made to have this individual disbarred ?

If not -- why not ??

It can make not the slightest degree of sense to tolerate this person's continuation in a position she fundamentally disgraces !

By what reason would she be disbarred?

[tailfins]

I take it that there are efforts being made to have this individual disbarred ?

If not -- why not ??

It can make not the slightest degree of sense to tolerate this person's continuation in a position she fundamentally disgraces !

She is not impeached as a Supreme Court "Justice" for the same reason Hugo Chavez wasn't impeached as "President" of Venezuela. Lest you forget, Obamistas control the US Senate. And even if they didn't impreachment of the Obama regime (including Sotomayor) would be impractical until you get more public support for it.

[logroller]

She is not impeached as a Supreme Court "Justice" for the same reason Hugo Chavez wasn't impeached as "President" of Venezuela. Lest you forget, Obamistas control the US Senate. And even if they didn't impreachment of the Obama regime (including Sotomayor) would be impractical until you get more public support for it.
wrong-- she hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Lest you forget, that's the impetus for removal.
So far as the Senate goes, the try the case, the House brings impeachment charges.

[Drummond]

By what reason would she be disbarred?

Because she's such a fine, upstanding example of her profession ?? :rolleyes:

Try following the thread through, FJ, and remaining attentive to its content.

Anyway -- regardless, I already have an answer to my question. Evidently British judges are not nearly so immune to accountability, here, as some of yours are. To the best of my knowledge, in the UK's system there is ultimately no such thing as a 'for life' appointment anywhere in our judiciary. Indeed -- as I've demonstrated already on this thread, efforts are put in place to ensure they have a rigorously-determined 'shelf life' !

[aboutime]

'Q'; but I asked to a word. I suppose words are just a jumble of letters to you. There's always the option of just not pressing 'reply to post', regardless of whether you see it. But your ignore feature isn't going to stop you from trolling me into arguments nor me from seeing you do so.


Take not "Oh Log person". Were it not for admitted trolls like yourself. This place wouldn't be as much fun as YOU make it.

[fj1200]

Because she's such a fine, upstanding example of her profession ?? :rolleyes:

Try following the thread through, FJ, and remaining attentive to its content.

Anyway -- regardless, I already have an answer to my question. Evidently British judges are not nearly so immune to accountability, here, as some of yours are. To the best of my knowledge, in the UK's system there is ultimately no such thing as a 'for life' appointment anywhere in our judiciary. Indeed -- as I've demonstrated already on this thread, efforts are put in place to ensure they have a rigorously-determined 'shelf life' !

There is no content other than people whining about her being BO's hack. Now to the specific content in question:


Sotomayor was asked at a talk at Yale Law School later in the day about her use of the term "undocumented immigrants" rather than the traditional illegal alien. Sotomayor characterized the issue as a regulatory problem and said labeling immigrants criminals seemed insulting to her.

"I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation," Sotomayor said.

There isn't anything in there that deserves disbarment and FWIW no one concerned with the subject at hand should really care about British judges. Of course I've already identified what upsets you so. ;)

So seeing as how you don't really have much actual comment to make on the question I asked, what she said is de facto true; it is a regulatory problem as we have, unfortunately, really chosen to allow the practice and certain sectors of society benefit from it. To go about whining about criminals does nothing to convince the public in general that the US should get a handle on the issue of illegal immigration.

[logroller]

Because she's such a fine, upstanding example of her profession ?? :rolleyes:



WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has received the stamp of approval from the American Bar Assn. less than a week before her confirmation hearing begins on Capitol Hill.

Sotomayor, a sitting federal appeals judge in New York, was deemed "well qualified" to serve as an associate justice on the high court by an ABA panel -- the highest rating the national attorney organization bestows. The White House was notified by a letter Tuesday to counsel Gregory Craig. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/08/nation/na-sotomayor8

maybe try seeking the facts before blindly following the misleading rhetoric (eg, the OP title that twists what she actually said or AT alluding to her being associated with immigrants) -- fiction can be fun, but often does this lead to radical delusions that are completely divorced from reality.

[fj1200]

Facts are messy things.

[logroller]

Facts are messy things.
'Tis why radicals don't concern themselves with such; heaven forbid ideological extremists delve into factual inconsistencies of their positions.



http://youtu.be/xzYO0joolR0

[jimnyc]

Sotomayor characterized the issue as a regulatory problem and said labeling immigrants criminals seemed insulting to her

Do we believe that she had a conversation outside the event at Yale? And if so, do we believe that she referred to the issue as a regulatory problem? And if we believe these things, why don't we believe she said calling undocumented immigrants "criminals" seemed insulting to her? Isn't that what is meant when someone writes "and said"? Or does not being in quotes mean it really wasn't said? These are honest questions, not sarcastic. As I read it, this is what she said later in the day. But of course, I agree, it's also a way of a write intimating someone said this, but leaving themselves a back door by leaving out the quotes.

But from what I have read about her and her stance on immigration issues and such, I really don't see it as a leap in the slightest, that she would see it as insulting.

[fj1200]

But from what I have read about her and her stance on immigration issues and such, I really don't see it as a leap in the slightest, that she would see it as insulting.

But what she said is a non-issue IMO. I'm sure certain people mean it as an insult and I'm sure certain people take it as an insult especially when full citizens are looked at in the same fashion for none other than their appearance. Her having that opinion shouldn't really have that much impact but it's her future rulings which should determine response. Knee-jerk responses don't win elections.

[jimnyc]

But what she said is a non-issue IMO. I'm sure certain people mean it as an insult and I'm sure certain people take it as an insult especially when full citizens are looked at in the same fashion for none other than their appearance. Her having that opinion shouldn't really have that much impact but it's her future rulings which should determine response. Knee-jerk responses don't win elections.

Certainly nothing to look at that should remove her from the court. I think she should be able to have an opinion just like anyone else in the world - so long as her opinions never make it into court decisions. But that's the hard part, how would anyone ever know for sure? We assume that the judges will use the superior knowledge of the law to make decisions. We would also be naive if didn't expect them to take their political beliefs and lifetime experiences into their decision making process as well - which is why we have people going nuts when it's time to nominate someone, as everyone wants someone of their political affiliation to make it to the court. And if she is someone who defends illegal immigrants, or feels insulted over calling them criminals, then it's not far fetched to think she might vote based on her beliefs and opinions. That's still not a reason to remove her, I do agree with that. But a SC judge talking as such is odd. Think of the term "illegal immigrant". The illegal part is there as they broke the law and are not currently in the country in a legal manner. By definition they are criminals. Of course this doesn't make them as bad as murderers, but they are still in fact criminals. I don't think a sitting judge, whether SC or local judge, should be downplaying the law and making it sound as if certain criminals shouldn't be labeled such. She could easily have said that although they WERE criminals, they are still human beings and she would like to see a resolution of sorts.

Imagine another SC judge speaking out about - pretty much any other criminal activity you could think of - and they downplay it and make it sound like it's unfair or wrong to call those involved 'criminals'. I'm not so sure I would have a lot of faith in that judge going forward, at least not when it comes to anything regarding what they just spoke in defense of.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Kagan is the one for sure that should be removed. And don't give that bullshit about her saying she wouldn't recuse herself from bamcare if it came up. If you do you haven't a ffing clue about recusal and the reasons for it! She got by with saying she would not recuse herself because the fix was in to install the worthless bitch. Also she had to say she would not recuse because that was the plan and the sole reason bamscum picked her. Had she said she would recuse herself then later refused to do so all hell would have broken out about it! She had the votes to get confirmed so she told the truth. She just didnt tell it was the reason why she was being placed there. I still have to laugh at the number of gullible people walking around in this country. And most of them think they are quite brilliant. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Soto is a prejudiced piece of scum too and her comment revealed it. She revealed that she places her personal biases over the Rule of Law /Constitution and that's a biggie folks. They are sworn to not do that. However in this world today the scum get by with whatever they want to(breaking sworn oaths). The scum bamshit has corrupted everything he has had any influence and power over.--Tyr

[logroller]

Do we believe that she had a conversation outside the event at Yale? And if so, do we believe that she referred to the issue as a regulatory problem? And if we believe these things, why don't we believe she said calling undocumented immigrants "criminals" seemed insulting to her? Isn't that what is meant when someone writes "and said"? Or does not being in quotes mean it really wasn't said? These are honest questions, not sarcastic. As I read it, this is what she said later in the day. But of course, I agree, it's also a way of a write intimating someone said this, but leaving themselves a back door by leaving out the quotes.


But from what I have read about her and her stance on immigration issues and such, I really don't see it as a leap in the slightest, that she would see it as insulting.
It's an indirect quote; often referred to as paraphrasing. The issue I see in the instant case is that the paraphrase doesn't preserve the meaning of what was actually said.
For example, if I said "my favorite color is blue because it makes me feel cool and calm." It wouldn't be an accurate account of what I said to say 'logroller thinks he's cool', even if I were cool.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's an indirect quote; often referred to as paraphrasing. The issue I see in the instant case is that the paraphrase doesn't preserve the meaning of what was actually said.
For example, if I said "my favorite color is blue because it makes me feel cool and calm." It wouldn't be an accurate account of what I said to say 'logroller thinks he's cool', even if I were cool. And sometimes paraphrasing does get it right. If I stated that muslims are by faith sworn to oppose and destroy all non-muslims and later it was paraphrased to say 'ole Tyr sees muslims as our enemy. That would be right. And I would be right too. ;) Unless you can prove her words were of no consequence then we that deal in reality and judge a person by character and past history must go with what we see as a bias statement from a SC Justice that showed total disrespect for the Rule of Law/Constitution, this nation and its law abiding citizens. And why wouldn't we , the scum was chosen by Obama, the bastard that hates this nation?Hitler was bad , now tell me how many of his top people that were not--name a few ! And that is the point whether you agree or not. Birds of a feather hasn't been proven to be a correct adage millions of times before for nothing Hoss. Evil people do not surround themselves with Saints . She is scum, her words betray her false image so live with it. :laugh:--Tyr

[jimnyc]

It's an indirect quote; often referred to as paraphrasing. The issue I see in the instant case is that the paraphrase doesn't preserve the meaning of what was actually said.
For example, if I said "my favorite color is blue because it makes me feel cool and calm." It wouldn't be an accurate account of what I said to say 'logroller thinks he's cool', even if I were cool.

That carried over would lead us to believe that the accounting of facts completely changed by the time it made the article. We have nothing to go on to believe she didn't say just that, as the article states. I understand that it's not put there as a direct quote, and I understand the paraphrasing. But if true, this would be making something up, and perhaps putting words in the mouth of a supreme court judge. And not just any words, but some rather controversial words. Words that can be misconstrued, and give an appearance that she doesn't fully support the LAW on this issue. We don't know anything factual for sure. But one would think that such a lie/mistake/misdirection, would perhaps lead to a correction, from either side. I wish we could get clarification on this, as I do think it's a fairly big deal if she did in fact state as much. But I don't think, even if she did say it, that it's grounds for removal.

[fj1200]

Certainly nothing to look at that should remove her from the court. I think she should be able to have an opinion just like anyone else in the world - so long as her opinions never make it into court decisions. But that's the hard part, how would anyone ever know for sure? We assume that the judges will use the superior knowledge of the law to make decisions. We would also be naive if didn't expect them to take their political beliefs and lifetime experiences into their decision making process as well - which is why we have people going nuts when it's time to nominate someone, as everyone wants someone of their political affiliation to make it to the court. And if she is someone who defends illegal immigrants, or feels insulted over calling them criminals, then it's not far fetched to think she might vote based on her beliefs and opinions. That's still not a reason to remove her, I do agree with that. But a SC judge talking as such is odd. Think of the term "illegal immigrant". The illegal part is there as they broke the law and are not currently in the country in a legal manner. By definition they are criminals. Of course this doesn't make them as bad as murderers, but they are still in fact criminals. I don't think a sitting judge, whether SC or local judge, should be downplaying the law and making it sound as if certain criminals shouldn't be labeled such. She could easily have said that although they WERE criminals, they are still human beings and she would like to see a resolution of sorts.

Imagine another SC judge speaking out about - pretty much any other criminal activity you could think of - and they downplay it and make it sound like it's unfair or wrong to call those involved 'criminals'. I'm not so sure I would have a lot of faith in that judge going forward, at least not when it comes to anything regarding what they just spoke in defense of.

Her opinions are court decisions. Nevertheless she said nothing about her making particular decisions based on semantics and her role is to determine whether laws are Constitutional or not. As long as she understands her role is in judging if a particular Federal or State law violates the Constitution or not then quibbling over whether calling an illegal immigrant is a criminal or not is just further rabbit holes to go down. I may not have any faith in her upholding a strict constructionist viewpoint but this is only a distraction from larger issues.

[logroller]

That carried over would lead us to believe that the accounting of facts completely changed by the time it made the article. We have nothing to go on to believe she didn't say just that, as the article states. I understand that it's not put there as a direct quote, and I understand the paraphrasing. But if true, this would be making something up, and perhaps putting words in the mouth of a supreme court judge. And not just any words, but some rather controversial words. Words that can be misconstrued, and give an appearance that she doesn't fully support the LAW on this issue. We don't know anything factual for sure. But one would think that such a lie/mistake/misdirection, would perhaps lead to a correction, from either side. I wish we could get clarification on this, as I do think it's a fairly big deal if she did in fact state as much. But I don't think, even if she did say it, that it's grounds for removal.
Look at the context of what she DID say, the quote immediately following the author's paraphrase--- does she say that confronting illegitimate immigration is insulting? Does she say that the courts should grant leniency?
no. Yet all these things are inferred by the paraphrase. IMO, what she says is that the use of loaded term 'illegal alien' is the precursor for denying rights to a class of people and, specifically, her disagreement with the Court's 2003 ruling on habeus corpus suspensions for deportation hearings. Whether one agrees or not, there entitled to their own opinion.
In a broad sense, I think the issue is how committed we have become uncompromising ideologies, promulgated through labels. That when a jurist, such as Roberts on the PPACA, opines against the prevailing ideology thought to apply to him, he's labelled a turncoat of some type. Or the use if the term RINO. Is our society born of such uncompromising commitment to political ideologies that even our jurists are expected to vote the ideological party-line-- attacked by those who share their ideology when they deviate from such-- yet, hypercritically, derided by those of differing ideological persuasion when they don't deviate?
Classic catch 22-- damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is a problem that pervades our country and it behooves us to approach our disagreements with mutual respect and a commitment to reason from facts (even those which challenge ourselves), as opposed to derisive rhetoric, pejorative labels, allegations of treason and dishonorable justices in our nations's highest court. The latter is a recipe for revolution-- is that what best serves our national interest?

[Drummond]

It's amazing how complicated an issue this is becoming. Surely, the basic issue at stake is this judge's cavalier attitude towards the laws she, as a judge, should be sworn to serve ?

Quoting this from another post ...


Sotomayor was asked at a talk at Yale Law School later in the day about her use of the term "undocumented immigrants" rather than the traditional illegal alien. Sotomayor characterized the issue as a regulatory problem and said labeling immigrants criminals seemed insulting to her.

An illegal alien IS one, by defying the legality involved !!! Sotomayor chose to try and sanitise the issue by using a form of language which glossed over the stark fact of illegality. WHY ?

An illegal alien is an immigrant whose presence is ILLEGAL. Since it is ILLEGAL, it BREAKS THE LAW. Therefore, said lawbreaker is - surely !! - committing a criminal act by doing so.

-- Or ... perhaps, criminals aren't classifiable as criminals because they break the law ???

Your judge, by attempting to use sanitising language in describing such peoples' status, and compounding it by trying to separate out the criminality from the criminal act of illegality (!!!!), is surely showing herself to be unfit to hold her position ?! Since when does a judge have the right to DEFY the application of laws she's meant to UPHOLD ??????

Why even have set laws in the first place ? Why not just have judges make them up as they go along, or defy them on a whim ?

[jimnyc]

Her opinions are court decisions. Nevertheless she said nothing about her making particular decisions based on semantics and her role is to determine whether laws are Constitutional or not. As long as she understands her role is in judging if a particular Federal or State law violates the Constitution or not then quibbling over whether calling an illegal immigrant is a criminal or not is just further rabbit holes to go down. I may not have any faith in her upholding a strict constructionist viewpoint but this is only a distraction from larger issues.

You have 2 roles for her. Are you saying that her OPINIONS are what determines constitutionality when she hears a case in front of the SC? I think her role is more towards the second. I don't think she can willy nilly vote on something that COULD be unconstitutional, just because her personal opinion differs with the law/COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Look at the context of what she DID say, the quote immediately following the author's paraphrase--- does she say that confronting illegitimate immigration is insulting? Does she say that the courts should grant leniency?
no. Yet all these things are inferred by the paraphrase. IMO, what she says is that the use of loaded term 'illegal alien' is the precursor for denying rights to a class of people and, specifically, her disagreement with the Court's 2003 ruling on habeus corpus suspensions for deportation hearings. Whether one agrees or not, there entitled to their own opinion.
In a broad sense, I think the issue is how committed we have become uncompromising ideologies, promulgated through labels. That when a jurist, such as Roberts on the PPACA, opines against the prevailing ideology thought to apply to him, he's labelled a turncoat of some type. Or the use if the term RINO. Is our society born of such uncompromising commitment to political ideologies that even our jurists are expected to vote the ideological party-line-- attacked by those who share their ideology when they deviate from such-- yet, hypercritically, derided by those of differing ideological persuasion when they don't deviate?
Classic catch 22-- damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is a problem that pervades our country and it behooves us to approach our disagreements with mutual respect and a commitment to reason from facts (even those which challenge ourselves), as opposed to derisive rhetoric, pejorative labels, allegations of treason and dishonorable justices in our nations's highest court. The latter is a recipe for revolution-- is that what best serves our national interest?

I agree overall. But what this boils down to is her comments being a direct contradiction to current US law. The agreement/disagreement on what happens after the label is made... set that aside... the term is FACTUAL. Changing it to anything else is simply political correctness. Do we label ANY other type of person, who breaks the law, as anything other than a criminal? Fact is, it's a crime. Changing the label to "undocumented" is solely PC crap. And even if, which I have no problem with in the long run, it shouldn't be insulting to someone. Would she be equally insulted if someone who stole a car was called a criminal or thief? Or even someone who only stole from Walmart, still a thief and now a criminal. Trying to change that is to soften a stance, to find less wrong with the "crime" (my opinion of course). Imagine ANYONE going into your typical night court or criminal court, and a judge refers to a defendant as a criminal, a thief, or other negative name in which describes their criminal behavior - and that person tells the judge it's insulting.... LOL <--- as would the judge and the rest of the court.


It's amazing how complicated an issue this is becoming. Surely, the basic issue at stake is this judge's cavalier attitude towards the laws she, as a judge, should be sworn to serve ?

Bingo. That's my issue, her so freely talking about the law as if she seems to have no regard for it. Trying to take the illegal out of it, certainly sounds like someone trying to make it sound like less of a crime.

IMO, I think it could be the beginning of laws changing in favor of ILLEGAL immigrants down the road. Laugh if you will, but a couple more with her thinking, then congressional decisions and/or court cases coming their way. I don't think making it easier for just anyone to hope a fence and come here would be a great idea. Nor rewarding the millions that should be deported either. I've posted this many times, but take the 9 minutes to watch this if you've never seen this before - and this is only about LEGAL immigration.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FM1YU-Ni_84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[logroller]

Kagan is the one for sure that should be removed. And don't give that bullshit about her saying she wouldn't recuse herself from bamcare if it came up.
Why not-- are all facts disputing your assertion of her dishonesty and dishonorable status to rejected?


If you do you haven't a ffing clue about recusal and the reasons for it!
What are they?

[logroller]

Here's a link to the second interview.

http://vimeo.com/m/85872053

The commentary in question starts around 1:05. She explains the reasoning of her statement in great detail.

[jimnyc]

Here's a link to the second interview.

http://vimeo.com/m/85872053

The commentary in question starts around 1:05. She explains the reasoning of her statement in great detail.

Excellent find!! Just started now at 1:04 and the woman is about to ask Sotomayor about it - and refers to it as "the phrase, the ugly phrase illegal alien". I don't know who this woman is from Yale, but funny that she leads the question by calling it ugly herself. I'll comment again after I get past this subject...

[jimnyc]

I saw this coming and disagree with her reasoning, and not an angle I would expect from a SC judge. She's calling out all kinds of small crimes that one can commit here in America - speeding, other violations, taken a pad home from work... Then goes on to say how we don't think of these people as criminals, yadda yadda yadda... All that does is compare apples to oranges in an attempt to minimize the crime of being in the country illegally. Then of course onto violent crimes, as to point out that they are worse (of course they are), but this is done in an attempt to minimize the crime of being here illegally. She said THOSE are criminals. Then on to companies... YAWN. I can agree with some of that, if it weren't attempts to draw away from the criminal activity of the people in question. And yes, whether she likes it or not, those labeled as such have committed a crime. And then she does confirm what we weren't fully sure of, she said it was insulting to her to call them illegal aliens.

I couldn't disagree more with her. She should have just directly answered instead of trying to lay 'stages' in order to minimize the crime. And unless she wants to join others and change laws on the books, then she can remain insulted. All the PC stuff has already been too too much for many years now. And now we have a SCOTUS member rallying, so as not to offend them.

[aboutime]

I saw this coming and disagree with her reasoning, and not an angle I would expect from a SC judge. She's calling out all kinds of small crimes that one can commit here in America - speeding, other violations, taken a pad home from work... Then goes on to say how we don't think of these people as criminals, yadda yadda yadda... All that does is compare apples to oranges in an attempt to minimize the crime of being in the country illegally. Then of course onto violent crimes, as to point out that they are worse (of course they are), but this is done in an attempt to minimize the crime of being here illegally. She said THOSE are criminals. Then on to companies... YAWN. I can agree with some of that, if it weren't attempts to draw away from the criminal activity of the people in question. And yes, whether she likes it or not, those labeled as such have committed a crime. And then she does confirm what we weren't fully sure of, she said it was insulting to her to call them illegal aliens.

I couldn't disagree more with her. She should have just directly answered instead of trying to lay 'stages' in order to minimize the crime. And unless she wants to join others and change laws on the books, then she can remain insulted. All the PC stuff has already been too too much for many years now. And now we have a SCOTUS member rallying, so as not to offend them.



jimnyc. It appears our CONSTITUTION, and LAWS have been replaced...even for members of SCOTUS, with the Liberal, Intentional Versions of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, across the board.

In other words. Laws do not matter, like Immigration, Citizenship, or Common Sense.
All of those things have been discarded, and even Ignored by ALL THREE BRANCHES of our government, and the people who claim to be part of them.

The AMERICA most of us once knew...is being replaced with IDIOTS, and the people SIMPLY DO NOT CARE...because...MOST OF THEM....R.....1.

[logroller]

I saw this coming and disagree with her reasoning, and not an angle I would expect from a SC judge. She's calling out all kinds of small crimes that one can commit here in America - speeding, other violations, taken a pad home from work... Then goes on to say how we don't think of these people as criminals, yadda yadda yadda... All that does is compare apples to oranges in an attempt to minimize the crime of being in the country illegally. Then of course onto violent crimes, as to point out that they are worse (of course they are), but this is done in an attempt to minimize the crime of being here illegally. She said THOSE are criminals. Then on to companies... YAWN. I can agree with some of that, if it weren't attempts to draw away from the criminal activity of the people in question. And yes, whether she likes it or not, those labeled as such have committed a crime. And then she does confirm what we weren't fully sure of, she said it was insulting to her to call them illegal aliens.

I couldn't disagree more with her. She should have just directly answered instead of trying to lay 'stages' in order to minimize the crime. And unless she wants to join others and change laws on the books, then she can remain insulted. All the PC stuff has already been too too much for many years now. And now we have a SCOTUS member rallying, so as not to offend them.
Fair enough Jim, I agree her comments were rather candid for a sitting justice. But what she said is factual. Ever illegally downloaded music???? That's a felony, but do you recall the pushback on SOPA. Its no different than stealing from a store jim. So It's not just lackluster political correctness that leads her to feel insulted; its that any number of persons commit crimes but not every class of person receives the vitriol that illegals do and often is the case where individuals who are legal residents, even citizens of Hispanic descent are lumped into the same. Earlier you said 'set that aside', as though the sum of the facts shouldn't be considered in gauging one's opinion on an issue. The eugenics movement of the early 20th century had a pretty strong factual basis too; should we set aside the manifestations of that?

I can can list any number of seemingly innocuous facts that lead to nefarious acts. It's not about the feel-good politics-- that's a copout IMO-- it's about how the words we use to describe others affect how we treat others.

[Anton Chigurh]

If they are here ILLEGALLY - it IS criminal, by the very definition and any other way you slice it.Would you call someone driving without a license a criminal? A jaywalker?

No, you would say they are a misdemeanor violator.

It does the cause no good at all to call misdemeanor violators, "criminals."

For those who froth and foam and are adamant that ALL "illegals" should be deported, prefer to call them all "criminals." That's been estimated to be between 11 million and 20 million people, I'll go with the smaller figure.

So.. How you gonna do this? You gonna rely on them to voluntarily go to relocation centers, or are you going to round them up, or both?

Will you use billboards, TV and radio advertising, newspaper and magazine ads and such to let them know where the relocation centers are? Maybe scribblings on the front of buildings?

I assume you would need relocation centers, because that's alot of people and you wouldn't want to just flood train stations, bus terminals, and airports with these unwashed hordes, right? And you being humane and all, you wouldn't let them just concentrate and camp outdoors, right?

So... Once you concentrate them in the relocation centers, do you feed and water them? Do you do medical checks, record all their names, dates of birth and etc? Do you inventory their possessions? What possessions will you allow them to keep and take with them? Will you mark them or brand them in some way, so you can keep track of them? I know! How about barcode tattoos on their arms!

What about the sick and elderly ones? What about the children among them who were born here. Are they "criminals" too? What's your plan for dealing with these?

Will you segregate them in the concentration ca-- I mean, relocation centers by religion? Or by region they are from? By country? What?

Finally, when your mode of transportation has been established, how will you determine which ones go first? Or do you just sort of let them go like a cow herd, towards the exits?

What kind of transport would you use? Trucks? Trains? Planes? Buses? What?

What's your budget for this kind of operation? How many millions or billions does it cost the taxpayer?

I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

They have violated a civil statute we do not enforce. This does NOT make them, by itself, criminals. Any more than I am a criminal for speeding. Or driving without a license, or jaywalking.

Here's how all this happened. It's 50 years worth, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you call someone driving without a license a criminal? A jaywalker?

No, you would say they are a misdemeanor violator.

It does the cause no good at all to call misdemeanor violators, "criminals."

For those who froth and foam and are adamant that ALL "illegals" should be deported, prefer to call them all "criminals." That's been estimated to be between 11 million and 20 million people, I'll go with the smaller figure.

So.. How you gonna do this? You gonna rely on them to voluntarily go to relocation centers, or are you going to round them up, or both?

Will you use billboards, TV and radio advertising, newspaper and magazine ads and such to let them know where the relocation centers are? Maybe scribblings on the front of buildings?

I assume you would need relocation centers, because that's alot of people and you wouldn't want to just flood train stations, bus terminals, and airports with these unwashed hordes, right? And you being humane and all, you wouldn't let them just concentrate and camp outdoors, right?

So... Once you concentrate them in the relocation centers, do you feed and water them? Do you do medical checks, record all their names, dates of birth and etc? Do you inventory their possessions? What possessions will you allow them to keep and take with them? Will you mark them or brand them in some way, so you can keep track of them? I know! How about barcode tattoos on their arms!

What about the sick and elderly ones? What about the children among them who were born here. Are they "criminals" too? What's your plan for dealing with these?

Will you segregate them in the concentration ca-- I mean, relocation centers by religion? Or by region they are from? By country? What?

Finally, when your mode of transportation has been established, how will you determine which ones go first? Or do you just sort of let them go like a cow herd, towards the exits?

What kind of transport would you use? Trucks? Trains? Planes? Buses? What?

What's your budget for this kind of operation? How many millions or billions does it cost the taxpayer?

I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

They have violated a civil statute we do not enforce. This does NOT make them, by itself, criminals. Any more than I am a criminal for speeding. Or driving without a license, or jaywalking.

Here's how all this happened. It's 50 years worth, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:, sure why have any laws? That's the ticket its too big a job cleaning it up. Where haven't I heard that a thousand times already.. :laugh2: That's right, from a few dozen liberal asses on other sites. How about you go to work and a family moves right on into your home because you forgot to lock the door and the cops told you its too big a job to force them out so live with it? Reckon you would be so damn understanding then? I'd lay 100 to 1 odds that you wouldn't and you'd be screaming bloody murder about it. Go ahead and lie saying you would just let them stay. :laugh2: But since its just this country and you have some lame ass bias you are so understanding and compassionate about it. Sure that makes you a fine fellow and heap big man with your friends. Every damn liberal I've ever debated about it gave the same bullshat reasoning you just gave. Welcome to the club.. They are mmfing criminals get used to it and don't try to sell my kid and grandkids heritage and future down the freaking river so you can soothe your bleeding heart dumbass shat idea of liberal thinking hoss. Sure your plan is a real dilly isn't it. Just let the bastards stay and ignore the costs, the murders they do, the rape ,robberies ,multitude of deaths they cause on the highways etc. and billion of dollars burden they are to this nation. --Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

sure why have any laws? That's the ticket its too big a job cleaning it up. Where haven't I heard that a thousand times already..Except, only you are saying that. I definitely, did not.

What's your plan? Oh yeah, you simply forgot to post it. Probably because I just did, the "Mass Criminal Displacement Plan."

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code:


Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.


The fines are exactly what a misdemeanor such as a parking ticket would carry. And they double it for subsequent incidents. But it's a civil statute, not a criminal law.

Violators of this statute are NOT "criminals" any more than a jaywalker or a speeder is.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why not-- are all facts disputing your assertion of her dishonesty and dishonorable status to rejected?


What are they?


http://www.tdcaa.com/node/7383 Read for yourself. If you find that one not satisfactory search to find your own. --Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

How about you go to work and a family moves right on into your home because you forgot to lock the door and the cops told you its too big a job to force them out so live with it? Reckon you would be so damn understanding then? I'd lay 100 to 1 odds that you wouldn't and you'd be screaming bloody murder about it.You quickly demonstrate once again just how dishonest and outright stupid you are, equating home invasion with illegal border crossing.

Hint: One of them is a felony, the other is a misdemeanor civil statute.

Let's see your immigration reform plan, please.

[Anton Chigurh]

Hey Tyr - is the hawt Russian swimsuit model who enters illegally a criminal too? Or just the greasy, brown and stinky messicans and africans?

[Anton Chigurh]

Ya see, I come at this from a completely different angle than you guys do. Because I am what's called in law enforcement and justice system parlance, a "scofflaw." I violate alot of misdemeanors and I do it every day. I don't give a red rat's ass about them because it's clear they really don't either. They are not really laws, so much as they are polite suggestions. "Please obtain a driver's license," and the like.

Fuck all that. I haven't had a license in well over 20 years. I don't get my vehicles registered, and I don't insure them. None of my pistols, rifles or shotguns are registered and never will be. I DO wear seat belts however, because it makes sense to me. Same thing for speeding, I don't do that. There's no need, you'll still get where you're going. I view the speed limit signs as polite suggestions. I don't even register to vote, I use provisional absentee ballots they're required to provide. And so on.

I pick and choose which of their little pissant laws I want to follow, and not because they are laws, because they make sense to me. Some of their polite suggestions, do make sense.

This is what is happening with the current immigration law. You should really read up on it and its effects. It was passed in 1964 by a completely democrat controlled house and senate, and signed by a democrat President. It opened the borders and abolished quotas for entry. And sent the message that, we really don't give two red rat's asses about it so why should you, Mr. foreign national?

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965)

You'll just shake your head in shock and awe, if you take the time to read this. Really. Shit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except, only you are saying that. I definitely, did not.

What's your plan? Oh yeah, you simply forgot to post it. Probably because I just did, the "Mass Criminal Displacement Plan."

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code:


Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.


The fines are exactly what a misdemeanor such as a parking ticket would carry. And they double it for subsequent incidents. But it's a civil statute, not a criminal law.

Violators of this statute are NOT "criminals" any more than a jaywalker or a speeder is. We have been screaming the ffing plan for over a decade-----close the ffing border. Then deport every ffing one of them. It would save us the many tens of billions they draw on the government programs yearly. Really you did not say just ignore it. Maybe I missed where you said seal the border and deport them. All this while you ignore that other nations either shoot such bastards sneaking in immediately and/or actively deport them or give them long prison sentences. We could start charging Mexico billions for taking care of their problem. The fact our government is ruled by lame ass liberals and other dem scum does not excuse this law breaking. Say did they never build another large ship because the Titanic sank? The job is not too big not when one truly considers the true future costs to this nation. I look at that truth of the future costs others do not either because of ignorance, bias or stupidity. --Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

We have been screaming the ffing plan for over a decade-----close the ffing border. Then deport every ffing one of them. Then you need to go back to my first post (http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=682662#post682662), and answer all those questions posed about the Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

[Anton Chigurh]

Ironically I just got done watching four episodes of "Cops" from 1994, where they rode with border patrol officers in and around the El Paso Texas area.

Not one illegal was arrested. One of the officers said,

"What they're doing really isn't a crime and it's not worth risking lives and public safety over."

Hmm.

The ones which were caught, weren't even processed. Just taken back to where they had entered and let out.

"We would appreciate it if you would kindly and if it's not too much trouble, enter our country only through the designated stations, and register. Thank you."

Is the same as:

"We would appreciate it if you would kindly and if it's not too much trouble, register your vehicle with us and obtain a license to drive it. Thank you."

And so on. Polite suggestions. No teeth. Not really "laws."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey Tyr - is the hawt Russian swimsuit model who enters illegally a criminal too? Or just the greasy, brown and stinky messicans and africans?Doesn't matter to me what the bastards look like --they break the law they are a damn criminal. She should have her ass tossed out just as quick.

[Anton Chigurh]

Doesn't matter to me what the bastards look like --they break the law they are a damn criminal.Except, they're not criminals. They are violators of a misdemeanor civil statute.

Do you call jaywalkers "criminals?"

[Anton Chigurh]

It would save us the many tens of billions they draw on the government programs yearly. Yes, concentration and relocation camps and cattle car trains are much cheaper, Adolph.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You quickly demonstrate once again just how dishonest and outright stupid you are, equating home invasion with illegal border crossing.

Hint: One of them is a felony, the other is a misdemeanor civil statute.

Let's see your immigration reform plan, please. No, you just didn't like it because it put light on the folly of your post I replied to. Now I have read our post bragging of your willful law breaking as if its a sign of something great. So what if many of us get caught speeding and pay our fines. At least we knew it was illegal , paid our fine and did not say just toss the ffing law out. I demonstrated just how damn honest I am while you bragged about your law breaking-- which one of us is truly stupid and which one is just being honest and standing on principles. -Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

No, you just didn't like it because it put light on the folly of your post I replied to. No, you didn't. You erected a infantile straw man by asserting I said something which I did not.

The refuge of the weak and dishonest mind.

And of course, you're still answering NONE of the questions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except, they're not criminals. They are violators of a misdemeanor civil statute.

Do you call jaywalkers "criminals?" Really ? I guess with your ideas of obeying whichever laws you decide too you are a good judge of such matters. :rolleyes: Make up your mind , do you want to be an anarchist, sovereign citizen or just a revolutionary? -Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Really ? I guess with your ideas of obeying whichever laws you decide too you are a good judge of such matters. :rolleyes: Make up your mind , do you want to be an anarchist, sovereign citizen or just a revolutionary? -TyrWhy don't you just answer the question?

[Anton Chigurh]

You want to forcibly deport 11 million-plus people en masse. Has that ever happened in the history of mankind? How would you identify them?

I mean, we're merely quibbling over the packaging of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan now.

[Anton Chigurh]

You can inaccurately and derisively call them "criminals" all day long to your widdle heart's content, but don't try to sell that as accurate. And don't think you're winning over any hearts and minds that way.

Border patrol agents don't call them "criminals," I don't - I call them violators of a 50 year old misdemeanor law which has NO teeth and they don't get fined or jailed for the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth violation! We don't fine them and we don't jail them, we just send them back and say "please use the door for entry instead of the window." And if they happen to make it to a "sanctuary city" like Denver? They don't even get deported. They just get to stay. With full amnesty.

Keep calling them "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national election in your lifetime, you idiot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except, only you are saying that. I definitely, did not.

What's your plan? Oh yeah, you simply forgot to post it. Probably because I just did, the "Mass Criminal Displacement Plan."

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code:


Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.


The fines are exactly what a misdemeanor such as a parking ticket would carry. And they double it for subsequent incidents. But it's a civil statute, not a criminal law.

Violators of this statute are NOT "criminals" any more than a jaywalker or a speeder is.

Are you a U.S. citizen? I ask because when you replied citing how you ignore our laws you sounded just like an illegal Mexican. Are you one? Or are you like Soto and just biased as hell for them?-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Are you a U.S. citizen? I ask because when you replied citing how you ignore our laws you sounded just like an illegal Mexican. Are you one? Or are you like Soto and just biased as hell for them?-TyrIt's none of your fucking business.

Answer MY questions first, none of them are of a personal nature.

I am trying to explore your standards in this regard, about forcibly deporting 11 million-plus people. I mean, we're merely quibbling over the packaging of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan now, Adolph.

[Anton Chigurh]

you sounded just like an illegal Mexican. But, not the hawt, illegal Russian swimsuit model right?

They would just LOVE you at Stormfront.:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You can inaccurately and derisively call them "criminals" all day long to your widdle heart's content, but don't try to sell that as accurate. .

Keep calling them "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national election in your lifetime, you idiot. They are criminals and keep on insulting me as it so strengthens your case for kissing their asses. Accurate is they cost us hundreds of billions yearly and engage in massive amounts of crimes along with killing many innocent people on our highways. --Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

They are criminals By definition and by statute, they are not.

But, do keep calling them that, you'll convince all the Hispanic voters they should vote GOP!:laugh:

God, you're stupid.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's none of your fucking business. OK, hide it if it makes you feel better. I wouldn't want to hurt your delicate bleeding heart liberal feelings. :laugh: Just wanted to see if you would answer and the refusal to answer told me a lot. -Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

You keep deflecting and pettifogging and really jumping through hoops to avoid answering the questions about your plan to forcibly mass deport 11 million-plus people.

Why is that?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Answer MY questions first, none of them are of a personal nature. Hey, I reply as I want to and see fit. Are you ashamed to admit something? I asked if you were an illegal and you refused to answer. I think you are safe hoss, no border agents here. :laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You keep deflecting and pettifogging and really jumping through hoops to avoid answering the questions about your plan to forcibly mass deport 11 million-plus people.

Why is that? I guess that would be because I never submitted such a plan. A little fact you already noted. Are you that forgetful? I tell ya bleeding heart and forgetful too that's a real problem. What if you start to forget to defend the criminal scum?? What a tragedy. ;)--Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Hey, I reply as I want to and see fit. Are you ashamed to admit something? I asked if you were an illegal and you refused to answer. I think you are safe hoss, no border agents here. :laugh:--TyrFor those who froth and foam and are adamant that ALL "illegals" should be deported, prefer to call them all "criminals." That's been estimated to be between 11 million and 20 million people, I'll go with the smaller figure.



So.. How you gonna do this? You gonna rely on them to voluntarily go to relocation centers, or are you going to round them up, or both?
Will you use billboards, TV and radio advertising, newspaper and magazine ads and such to let them know where the relocation centers are? Maybe scribblings on the front of buildings?
I assume you would need relocation centers, because that's alot of people and you wouldn't want to just flood train stations, bus terminals, and airports with these unwashed hordes, right? And you being humane and all, you wouldn't let them just concentrate and camp outdoors, right?
So... Once you concentrate them in the relocation centers, do you feed and water them? Do you do medical checks, record all their names, dates of birth and etc? Do you inventory their possessions? What possessions will you allow them to keep and take with them? Will you mark them or brand them in some way, so you can keep track of them? I know! How about barcode tattoos on their arms!
What about the sick and elderly ones? What about the children among them who were born here. Are they "criminals" too? What's your plan for dealing with these?
Will you segregate them in the concentration ca-- I mean, relocation centers by religion? Or by region they are from? By country? What?
Finally, when your mode of transportation has been established, how will you determine which ones go first? Or do you just sort of let them go like a cow herd, towards the exits?
What kind of transport would you use? Trucks? Trains? Planes? Buses? What?
What's your budget for this kind of operation? How many millions or billions does it cost the taxpayer?


I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

[Anton Chigurh]

I guess that would be because I never submitted such a plan.Sure you did. You said you want them all deported. So, let's explore your standards in that regard.

[Anton Chigurh]

We're only quibbling about details and packaging of your forcible relocation of 11 million-plus people, Adolph. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to provide some details, since it's so obvious you've given it quite a bit of thought.:laugh:

[Anton Chigurh]

We have been screaming the ffing plan for over a decade-----close the ffing border. Then deport every ffing one of them.Ok then. Details of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan, please.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

For those who froth and foam and are adamant that ALL "illegals" should be deported, prefer to call them all "criminals." That's been estimated to be between 11 million and 20 million people, I'll go with the smaller figure.



So.. How you gonna do this? You gonna rely on them to voluntarily go to relocation centers, or are you going to round them up, or both?
Will you use billboards, TV and radio advertising, newspaper and magazine ads and such to let them know where the relocation centers are? Maybe scribblings on the front of buildings?
I assume you would need relocation centers, because that's alot of people and you wouldn't want to just flood train stations, bus terminals, and airports with these unwashed hordes, right? And you being humane and all, you wouldn't let them just concentrate and camp outdoors, right?
So... Once you concentrate them in the relocation centers, do you feed and water them? Do you do medical checks, record all their names, dates of birth and etc? Do you inventory their possessions? What possessions will you allow them to keep and take with them? Will you mark them or brand them in some way, so you can keep track of them? I know! How about barcode tattoos on their arms!
What about the sick and elderly ones? What about the children among them who were born here. Are they "criminals" too? What's your plan for dealing with these?
Will you segregate them in the concentration ca-- I mean, relocation centers by religion? Or by region they are from? By country? What?
Finally, when your mode of transportation has been established, how will you determine which ones go first? Or do you just sort of let them go like a cow herd, towards the exits?
What kind of transport would you use? Trucks? Trains? Planes? Buses? What?
What's your budget for this kind of operation? How many millions or billions does it cost the taxpayer?


I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan. We put men on the moon, built an Interstate highway system and spend who knows how many hundreds of billions a year on our military and you think its an impossible task to remove that number spread out over a decade. Here is a hint just for you trains will do just fine and luxury quarters are not required. They didn't have luxury quarters on their way in did they?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/ Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds
^^^ That isn't chump change or can you not count?- :laugh:-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

We put men on the moon, built an Interstate highway system and spend who knows how many hundreds of billions a year on our military and you think its an impossible task to remove that number spread out over a decade.I never said it was impossible. Please find where I said that, and quote it. Fucking liar.
Here is a hint just for you trains will do just fine and luxury quarters are not required. They didn't have luxury quarters on their way in did they?Now we are getting somewhere. Please continue, there are alot of other questions about your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan still left unanswered. Including, the cost.

[Anton Chigurh]

Here is a hint just for you trains will do just fine and luxury quarters are not required.Trains worked for Hitler too, until he realized it was way messy and too costly.

But, do please continue.

[Anton Chigurh]

Here is a hint just for you trains will do just fine and luxury quarters are not required.Would the illegal hawt Russian swimsuit models get the trains too? Or just the brown people?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I never said it was impossible. Please find where I said that, and quote it. Fucking liar.Now we are getting somewhere. Please continue, there are alot of other questions about your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan still left unanswered. Including, the cost. I'll get right on that after you show me where I ever submitted a Mass Criminal Displacement Plan. Sure sounds like a dumbass liberal title to me. I usually just say deport them but I guess such simplicity bores you so you go with some crap you just made up. While you attempt to prove it too big a job after saying you never stated that. I find that contradiction quite interesting. Are you often this double minded , forgetful and bleeding hearted? -- :laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would the illegal hawt Russian swimsuit models get the trains too? Or just the brown people? Dude , your hots for that swimsuit model must have your head spinning. Can you please post a picture of her?? I'd like to see exactly what I still want deported. :laugh: However if she would just swear to vote dem they'd let her stay. And you could date her-- that soothe your fantasy for you? - ;)--Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

I'll get right on that after you show me where I ever submitted a Mass Criminal Displacement Plan. You did, and i already quoted you on that.

I'm just trying to get you to flesh out the details now, about the plan you proposed when you said this:
We have been screaming the ffing plan for over a decade-----close the ffing border. Then deport every ffing one of them.You have been screaming this plan for over a decade so surely you have given it alot of thought and can provide details.

So... We now know your preferred mode of transport for them is trains. Trains don't go across the ocean though, like to Russia and stuff. Or, do you want to let the illegal hawt Russian swimsuit models stay?

We're only quibbling Adolph, about the packaging of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

[Anton Chigurh]

Dude , your hots for that swimsuit model must have your head spinning. Can you please post a picture of her?? I'd like to see exactly what I still want deported. :laugh: However if she would just swear to vote dem they'd let her stay. And you could date her-- that soothe your fantasy for you? - ;)--TyrYou just, avoid answering the questions - not unlike Obama. I wonder why?

[Anton Chigurh]

It's a plan you've screamed about for ten years. I'm just asking some detailed questions about it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You did, and i already quoted you on that.

I'm just trying to get you to flesh out the details now, about the plan you proposed when you said this:You have been screaming this plan for over a decade so surely you have given it alot of thought and can provide details.

So... We now know your preferred mode of transport for them is trains. Trains don't go across the ocean though, like to Russia and stuff. Or, do you want to let the illegal hawt Russian swimsuit models stay?

We're only quibbling Adolph, about the packaging of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan. My, my fantasies about swimsuit model and some guy named Adolph. I refuse to answer any more of your questions until you post a good picture of that hot swimsuit model!!!! Would be a nice diversion from reading your demanding how I reply to you. You'll soon learn like the others did that nobody gets to tell me how to reply. They can not do so in real life and certainly not here. I break my principles for no man. Plenty have tried none have succeeded. Fact.. By the way , quote me saying I would give a Mass Criminal Displacement Plan to you here or anywhere. You know that thing called deportation? Nations have different ways and policies on doing it. Pick one and have at it. :laugh: -Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

I refuse to answer any more of your questionsThere can be only two reasons for this.

1.) You're a frothing racist and you're afraid that continuing to answer will expose more of it.

2.) You really haven't given your plan you have screamed about for over a decade, much thought.

Oh yeah there is a third one.

3.) Both.

It's been a fun exercise though. Too bad you lack the courage to just fucking man up and give us details of your Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

Dishonest, racist, and a coward to boot.

[logroller]

Read for yourself. If you find that one not satisfactory search to find your own. --Tyr
Uh you were the one who claimed you had a superior understanding of recusal and the best explanation you can offer amounts to a 10 second google search.

So No-- That's not satisfactory-- it's not even specific to federal courts, but rather texas. In a nutshell, a judge should recuse oneself when there's an articulable interest in the case. It could be financial, a family member as one of the parties or they themselves were a party to the case. For example, a government attorney that participated on a case before a lower court should recuse thyself from considering the case at a higher court. (Btw-- that's why Kagan recused herself from the AZ immigration challenge)
So unless you have some evidence besides 'she's Obamas crony' (which is immaterial), then maybe you're the one who need continue the search because you still don't get it.

[jimnyc]

Would you call someone driving without a license a criminal? A jaywalker?

No, you would say they are a misdemeanor violator.



Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code:


Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.


The fines are exactly what a misdemeanor such as a parking ticket would carry. And they double it for subsequent incidents. But it's a civil statute, not a criminal law.

Violators of this statute are NOT "criminals" any more than a jaywalker or a speeder is.

Of course the people speeding are speeders. Driving without a license IS a crime and therefore they are a criminal. But those crimes are done there, or at least once the penalty is paid or equivalent. ILLEGAL immigrants don't just do a small crime and done, it continues, and they are still illegal all along. And if only civil, why are they sometimes deported? While you point out "Cops", I'll raise you with "Border Patrol" - where they spend millions along the border with machines that detect activity, drones and thousands of officers. They go out on calls and hunt them down like dogs along the border. When found, they are immediately cuffed and placed in the back of a border patrol truck. They are questioned at a federal facility and then eventually sent back home. An awful lot for people that are similar to jaywalkers.

As to the code you posted, that's not entirely true. Some are taken as civil, while others are criminal. It all depends on how they are caught and what they were doing. Your code only covers section (B) of the code, but (A) was never posted which is the criminal portion:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

[jimnyc]

You quickly demonstrate once again just how dishonest and outright stupid you are, equating home invasion with illegal border crossing.

Hint: One of them is a felony, the other is a misdemeanor civil statute.

Let's see your immigration reform plan, please.

A home invasion may not be equal to someone illegally crossing our borders - but jaywalking sure isn't either.

[jimnyc]

You keep deflecting and pettifogging and really jumping through hoops to avoid answering the questions about your plan to forcibly mass deport 11 million-plus people.

Why is that?

I know this is nuts, but humor me...

Supposing we had a mass-breakout of prisoners around the world, not just in the USA, but they all descended here. SO many of them, I mean hundreds of thousands. The same thing applies, costs and logistics to get rid of them or jail them. Do we just toss the laws to the wind? Ignoring laws outright because of logistics is dumb. Of course there might need to be changes, but they shouldn't include just tossing laws away and letting criminals walk. And yes, even though you said otherwise many, many times - it IS a crime, whether the government prosecutes or deports or not. The minute they try to enter the civil penalty applies. But it's also a crime at the same time, at least if you include ALL of the federal code. Similar to a criminal stealing from Walmart - still a crime, and the instant you try and steal they will also seek civil restitution of $350, regardless of the amount of the theft.

[jimnyc]

I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

Squeeze them instead, dry them up. Ensure they can't make a single penny by living here. Lock up anyone who attempts to employ illegals. Make sure they can't get any type of paperwork. Make sure they don't get a single penny via any welfare or other handout systems. Give them absolutely nothing other than headaches. Make it so that it's the equivalent of living in an alley at wherever they came from originally. Make it so that they hate it here, don't want to come here. Make it so that employers cringe if they see someone without proper papers. Anything and everything I am missing. Make it so that illegals will think they are sneaking into North Korea.

Sure, the problem won't be gone by tomorrow, but it WILL go away if treated like the problem it is.

[jimnyc]

I saw you wanted Tyr to answer these, several times, so I figured I would take a stab at it! :2up:



For those who froth and foam and are adamant that ALL "illegals" should be deported, prefer to call them all "criminals." That's been estimated to be between 11 million and 20 million people, I'll go with the smaller figure.

So.. How you gonna do this? You gonna rely on them to voluntarily go to relocation centers, or are you going to round them up, or both?

Both. Voluntary illegals just get to go home. If we must use resources to find you, then you get no re-entry if you come back.


Will you use billboards, TV and radio advertising, newspaper and magazine ads and such to let them know where the relocation centers are? Maybe scribblings on the front of buildings?

I would say all of the above. But there is no duty to seek them out and make them aware of our laws, whether new or old.


I assume you would need relocation centers, because that's alot of people and you wouldn't want to just flood train stations, bus terminals, and airports with these unwashed hordes, right? And you being humane and all, you wouldn't let them just concentrate and camp outdoors, right?

With $113 billion per year, you can build temporary pavilion style buildings with security. The plan would be to get rid of them sooner than later.


So... Once you concentrate them in the relocation centers, do you feed and water them? Do you do medical checks, record all their names, dates of birth and etc? Do you inventory their possessions? What possessions will you allow them to keep and take with them? Will you mark them or brand them in some way, so you can keep track of them? I know! How about barcode tattoos on their arms!

I would give them similar food that we give soldiers and/or astronauts. No medical checks since they are leaving. Record fingerprints in database. They keep the clothes on their backs, that's it. And we wave goodbye to them.


What about the sick and elderly ones? What about the children among them who were born here. Are they "criminals" too? What's your plan for dealing with these?

My plan would be for those who knowingly snuck in. At least the criminal portion. That would eliminate most children. If elderly and sick, yes, they get taken care of enough to be sent home.


Will you segregate them in the concentration ca-- I mean, relocation centers by religion? Or by region they are from? By country? What?

Oh, I see what you did there, trying to equate these to concentration camps. Slick! But these people aren't being set aside because of who they are, but because they committed a crime. But are you implying we should perhaps shove them all into ovens? :dunno:


Finally, when your mode of transportation has been established, how will you determine which ones go first? Or do you just sort of let them go like a cow herd, towards the exits?

"FIFO" from the places in which they are held. It worked for circuitry and it'll work for illegals!


What kind of transport would you use? Trucks? Trains? Planes? Buses? What?

That depends on where they are going, no?


What's your budget for this kind of operation? How many millions or billions does it cost the taxpayer?

It already costs us $113 billion per year, I think the potential savings alone would be enough to spend per year getting rid of these illegals.


I really want to see your plan. The Mass Criminal Displacement Plan.

I prefer to simply call it "getting rid of criminals".


They have violated a civil statute we do not enforce. This does NOT make them, by itself, criminals. Any more than I am a criminal for speeding. Or driving without a license, or jaywalking.

Again, it IS a crime. We don't deport people for civil statutes. Just because our government has failed us, and doesn't follow the law, doesn't mean they aren't still breaking the law. Those things you pointed out are "violations" and they are mostly gone once someone pays the penalty. Illegals are committing crimes, and it continues until they come in legally and/or are deported.


Here's how all this happened. It's 50 years worth, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Yep, dumb.

But look, as it is, with LEGAL immigration, our country is going to be run over before long and will look like downtown Bangkok. It's going to be more than tough to deal with that alone and the ever growing communities and what is required to support them. But then add in millions and millions over the years of illegals?

[tailfins]

Except, they're not criminals. They are violators of a misdemeanor civil statute.

Do you call jaywalkers "criminals?"

Document fraud is a felony. Bay County, Florida Sheriff Frank McKeithen has effectively rid his jurisdiction of illegal aliens mainly through rigorously enforcing document fraud statues. Why doesn't the rest of the country follow the Frank McKeithen model. He is very careful to cleverly operate inside the law. The only thing I would do different is point out that child support evaders use the same tactics as illegal aliens. "Illegal workers" could be targeted, eliminating the focus on national origin.


Below is a quote from the Sheriff's Office website.



http://bayso.org/ (http://bayso.org/)



The Bay County Sheriff's Office has a special unit that is committed to enforcing state statutes against illegal alien activity. Do you know of any illegal alien activity or employers that hire illegal aliens ?

[Anton Chigurh]

Document fraud is a felony. Of course, the meter was not "document fraud" it was illegal entry, ONLY.

Jim and all - keep calling illegals "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national office again, in your lifetime. You're not paying attention to optics and changing demographics.

That's my entire point.

You want to mass displace "criminals" and Jim I do appreciate you at least taking time to answer and doing it without erecting straw men and deflecting, and childish pettifogging.

But you're not really considering your place in history, with that plan.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Anton Chigurh;682727]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, How often do you post sonnets without giving due credit to the real author? There is a name for people that do that.. That is a sonnet by Emma Lazarus. Those words are engraved on a plaque that is mounted inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. You not posting the author would lead those unfamiliar with that Author and those words to think it is your writing.

Those words are a message to the many millions of immigrants that came to the United States and were happy to become American citizens. It damn sure is not speaking of illegals breaking our laws ,coming in and engaging in a multitude of crimes! Your use of it without giving credit to the true author is likely another one of those rules/laws that you so happily declared to routinely ignore. Surely points to your true character IMHO.--Tyr

[tailfins]

Of course, the meter was not "document fraud" it was illegal entry, ONLY.

Jim and all - keep calling illegals "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national office again, in your lifetime. You're not paying attention to optics and changing demographics.

That's my entire point.

You want to mass displace "criminals" and Jim I do appreciate you at least taking time to answer and doing it without erecting straw men and deflecting, and childish pettifogging.




That's the beauty of the McKeithen approach. It targets MOST of the the illegal aliens, as FELONS. When you mix in the occasional child support evader, you have cover for any racism accusations. It gets the job done without all the political baggage. Are any of you hard-core illegal immigration opponents opposed to this approach?

[jimnyc]

Of course, the meter was not "document fraud" it was illegal entry, ONLY.

Jim and all - keep calling illegals "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national office again, in your lifetime. You're not paying attention to optics and changing demographics.

That's my entire point.

You want to mass displace "criminals" and Jim I do appreciate you at least taking time to answer and doing it without erecting straw men and deflecting, and childish pettifogging.

But you're not really considering your place in history, with that plan.

They've been called illegal immigrants since the beginning of immigration to this country. If I were a politician, I would rather lose than go PC just to appease people. I think you underestimate how many Americans are sick and tired of illegals and what they cost local communities, via crime, welfare, jobs... But that's me, and I understand the world we live in now. I agree that becoming PC and appeasing people is the way these days, and without many giving in to this, and changing the name, or granting amnesty, will lose the support of many.

Personally, I suppose I can live with whatever the results are down the road, but I couldn't live with myself if I gave into political correctness. I can perhaps relent and agree not to run around calling them "criminals", which might imply similarity between them and more hardened criminals. But to the article about Sotomayor - I wouldn't drop "illegal" from immigration. That would imply what they are doing is not illegal.

[Drummond]

Would you call someone driving without a license a criminal? A jaywalker?

No, you would say they are a misdemeanor violator.

I know British law rather than American law. But in British law, a clear 'YES, they are criminals' would be the answer. Such cases would be heard, and sentences passed, in Magistrates' Courts .. and those sentences would create a criminal record for the offenders.

It might be regarded as 'low level' crime, but nonetheless, these, in law, would be seen to be criminal acts.

But I still don't see why this isn't a clear-cut recognition of criminality. Illegal must mean, NON-legal.

Therefore, outside of legality.

So how do perpetrators of acts which fall outside of the law fail to be seen to commit criminal acts ?? One obeys the law, or, one disobeys it. Illegal immigrants defy the laws which define what a LEGAL immigrant is.

Defiance of the law by committing an act which defies it, is committing a criminal act. I really fail to see how that isn't true.

[aboutime]

Sounds like Anton is willing to accept different LEVELS of breaking the laws of the land, or ignoring the Constitution, or the Amendments one doesn't like. Much like Obama, and Holder are doing today.

When the DEGREE of Illegality becomes the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS...acceptable to some, while others wish to OBEY, and FOLLOW All laws.

That becomes another stepping stone toward ANARCHY.

Or...as some, uninformed, uneducated Americans like to call it "PURE DEMOCRACY", better known as "MOB RULE".

[Drummond]

Sounds like Anton is willing to accept different LEVELS of breaking the laws of the land, or ignoring the Constitution, or the Amendments one doesn't like. Much like Obama, and Holder are doing today.

When the DEGREE of Illegality becomes the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS...acceptable to some, while others wish to OBEY, and FOLLOW All laws.

That becomes another stepping stone toward ANARCHY.

Or...as some, uninformed, uneducated Americans like to call it "PURE DEMOCRACY", better known as "MOB RULE".:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very well said !!

[Anton Chigurh]

others wish to OBEY, and FOLLOW All laws. That's what sheep do, obey all laws simply and only because they are laws.

I follow the ones that make sense to me. I look at the severity of the punishment to see how serious they are about it.

They are not serious about illegal entry.

[aboutime]

That's what sheep do, obey all laws simply and only because they are laws.

I follow the ones that make sense to me. I look at the severity of the punishment to see how serious they are about it.

They are not serious about illegal entry.


So you believe the Constitution, and the Laws of man are just for sheep?

That says much about you, and why you have little, if any honest form of respect from me.
Not that it would bother you anyway. You have to give it, in order to get it in return.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE][QUOTE] How often do you post sonnets without giving due credit to the real author? There is a name for people that do that.. That is a sonnet by Emma Lazarus. Those words are engraved on a plaque that is mounted inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. You not posting the author would lead those unfamiliar with that Author and those words to think it is your writing.

Those words are a message to the many millions of immigrants that came to the United States and were happy to become American citizens. It damn sure is not speaking of illegals breaking our laws ,coming in and engaging in a multitude of crimes! Your use of it without giving credit to the true author is likely another one of those rules/laws that you so happily declared to routinely ignore. Surely points to your true character IMHO.--Tyr


Quote Originally Posted by Anton Chigurh View Post


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, No reply ,did you miss my post or are you just running? :laugh:--Tyr

[aboutime]

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;682728][QUOTE]

No reply ,did you miss my post or are you just running? :laugh:--Tyr


Tyr. It appears. ^THAT...is not his only problem. Pretty desperate way to ASSUME one will get attention????

[logroller]

How often do you post sonnets without giving due credit to the real author? There is a name for people that do that.. Your use of it without giving credit to the true author is likely another one of those rules/laws that you so happily declared to routinely ignore. Surely points to your true character IMHO.--Tyr

The poem is public domain.


If the material is in the public domain (meaning the copyright in the work has expired or never existed), copyright law places no obligation on you to refer to the work as public domain, to cite the source, or to provide any other type of credit. Likewise, if your use of the material qualifies as a fair use (here I’m referring to fair use as defined under Section 107 of the Copyright Act), copyright law places no obligation on you to indicate that you’re relying on fair use, to cite the source, or to provide any other type of credit.http://www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2008/07/giving-credit-for-public-domain-and-fair-use-materials.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The poem is public domain.

http://www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2008/07/giving-credit-for-public-domain-and-fair-use-materials.html That may be true but it still does not stop an honorable person from giving due credit to the true author. To not give true credit leads readers to think those are the words of the person posting ! I knew right away it was not Anton's words but I bet many did not know and would have thought those brilliant words were coming from his mind. And that is why an honorable person gives due credit rather than just let the words be wrongly seen to be that poster's. And I asked twice--he doesn't answer yet you do. Seems to me he felt caught and just ran. I would ask any person here to check out the stories, poetry etc that I post and they will see that it is my own work! Vanity destroys the soul and corrupts the mind.
To lie to deceive some do as they please
The world is big and so is the net but what I do not get
Tis why so many pretend to be something they are not Ashamed of the integrity and honor they haven't got. Be true to self and let the cards simply fall For God made each of us to reach for the stars while standing true and tall. --Tyr

[logroller]

That may be true but it still does not stop an honorable person from giving due credit to the true author. To not give true credit leads readers to think those are the words of the person posting ! I knew right away it was not Anton's words but I bet many did not know and would have thought those brilliant words were coming from his mind. And that is why an honorable person gives due credit rather than just let the words be wrongly seen to be that poster's. And I asked twice--he doesn't answer yet you do. Seems to me he felt caught and just ran. I would ask any person here to check out the stories, poetry etc that I post and they will see that it is my own work! Vanity destroys the soul and corrupts the mind.


'It may be true'--- implying that it may not be true-- IT IS TRUE that its pubic domain. And Anton neither expressed nor implied he wrote the piece. Anybody American who thought he wrote that should have paid a little closer attention in class. Not to mention that cunning attempt to assail another's honor hardly speaks to anything by your of vanity. Befuddling that you preach of vanity whist expressing your deservedness of prideful admiration-- Specks in another's eye, a log in your own.


But If failure to attribute origin is your ruse de guerre, then you'd best get after these cartoon creators: http://listverse.com/2009/06/30/10-best-uses-of-classical-music-in-classic-cartoons/


And so far as repeatedly asking to no avail, just as I respond where Anton did not, so to did Jim respond where you did not. But nobody gets to tell anyone how to post, remember?

[Trigg]

Of course, the meter was not "document fraud" it was illegal entry, ONLY.

Jim and all - keep calling illegals "criminals" and watch, as a GOP candidate never wins a major national office again, in your lifetime. You're not paying attention to optics and changing demographics.

That's my entire point.



You ASSume that all hispanics agree with legalizing people caught sneaking into this country illegally. That simply isn't true. People who have come to this country legally (hispanics included) do NOT agree with the amnesty position that the democrats are trying to stuff down our throats.


Yes, the demographics of this country are changing. But almost without fail half the population is liberal and the other half conservative. The GOP doesn't need to change it's stance to win elections. They do need to do a better job of explaining why their ideas are better than the democrats.

[aboutime]

The poem is public domain.

http://www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2008/07/giving-credit-for-public-domain-and-fair-use-materials.html



LOG. Some people like you also tried to tell MICROSOFT that their 'WINDOWS' products were also Public Domain. So...how'd that work out?

[fj1200]

Why not just have judges make them up as they go along, or defy them on a whim ?

What law has she defied on a whim?


You have 2 roles for her. Are you saying that her OPINIONS are what determines constitutionality when she hears a case in front of the SC? I think her role is more towards the second. I don't think she can willy nilly vote on something that COULD be unconstitutional, just because her personal opinion differs with the law/COTUS.

Her opinion of the Constitution determine whether laws are Constitutional. Justices typically rule on very narrow issues that come before the court and there isn't any willy-nilly among them.

[logroller]

LOG. Some people like you also tried to tell MICROSOFT that their 'WINDOWS' products were also Public Domain. So...how'd that work out?
Just as people like you think a Strawman is a valid argument, they were incorrect; however, I'm not. But perhaps you'd like to share with us the legal similarities /differences between a turn of the 20th century sonnet and software code from the latter century... Here's a hint,
Art 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power....To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; emphasis mine.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And so far as repeatedly asking to no avail, just as I respond where Anton did not, so to did Jim respond where you did not. But nobody gets to tell anyone how to post, remember?

, so to did Jim respond where you did not. --ffing lie! I did reply but just not to his liking! I had no reason to reply to some misnamed plan he made up but I replied and he did not like it. So you told a damn lie when you say I did not reply. Do not give me that high horse shit dude. You come on defending this guy as if he is a child. Why? Can't the ffing genius talk for himself?? The guy is a damn "ultimate badass" or can you not read his stuff? I replied several times he didn't like how I replied because I mentioned deportation and not that dumbass made up label he was pushing. I chose not to give that dumbass shat any credence at all and now you strut on citing a lie that Jim replied where I did not! You can shove that lying crap where the Sun doesn't shine Hoss. AS TO ME HAVING A LOG IN EYE YOU ARE DAFT AS HELL. I DO NOT POST OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS AND NOT GIVE THEM THIER DUE. You mentioned why he didn't have to legally or by the rules here but I cited why he did IMHO. HOW ABOUT YOU TRYING TO BUST MY CHOPS ON SOMETHING THAT I REALLY DID INSTEAD OF THAT FFING LIE? WHAT IS ANTON TO YOU , A LONG LOST BABY OR SOMETHING? --Tyr

[aboutime]

Just as people like you think a Strawman is a valid argument, they were incorrect; however, I'm not. But perhaps you'd like to share with us the legal similarities /differences between a turn of the 20th century sonnet and software code from the latter century... Here's a hint, emphasis mine.


You wouldn't, and won't understand log. It refers to HONESTY, and giving credit...as you would demand from others in other circumstances.
Once again. Your hypocrisy precedes you. You can hint all you want. But the TRUTH still breaks your back as you attempt to reason with your own STRAWMAN idea's.

[logroller]

I guess that would be because I never submitted such a plan.;)--Tyr


I'll get right on that after you show me where I ever submitted a Mass Criminal Displacement Plan. Sure sounds like a dumbass liberal title to me. I usually just say deport them ...


, quote me saying I would give a Mass Criminal Displacement Plan to you here or anywhere. You know that thing called deportation? Nations have different ways and policies on doing it. Pick one and have at it. :laugh: -Tyr


, so to did Jim respond where you did not. --ffing lie! I did reply but just not to his liking! I had no reason to reply to some misnamed plan he made up but I replied and he did not like it. So you told a damn lie when you say I did not reply. Do not give me that high horse shit dude. You come on defending this guy as if he is a child. Why? Can't the ffing genius talk for himself?? The guy is a damn "ultimate badass" or can you not read his stuff? I replied several times he didn't like how I replied because I mentioned deportation and not that dumbass made up label he was pushing. I chose not to give that dumbass shat any credence at all and now you strut on citing a lie that Jim replied where I did not! You can shove that lying crap where the Sun doesn't shine Hoss. AS TO ME HAVING A LOG IN EYE YOU ARE DAFT AS HELL. I DO NOT POST OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS AND NOT GIVE THEM THIER DUE. You mentioned why he didn't have to legally or by the rules here but I cited why he did IMHO. HOW ABOUT YOU TRYING TO BUST MY CHOPS ON SOMETHING THAT I REALLY DID INSTEAD OF THAT FFING LIE? WHAT IS ANTON TO YOU , A LONG LOST BABY OR SOMETHING? --Tyr
Being loud doesn't change what I said, "...that you preach of vanity whilst expressing your deservedness of prideful admiration" into "POST OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS AND NOT GIVE THEM THIER DUE." You really should give credit to Aunt Sally for your use of a strawman argument.

My mistake on the non-response accusation. I thought you'd present an idea of your own; now I see that your 'plan', deportation, is to maintain the status quo: business as usual. Btw, Obama has a strong record for deportation during his presidency-- I trust you'll give credit where credit's due.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Being loud doesn't change what I said, "...that you preach of vanity whilst expressing your deservedness of prideful admiration" into "POST OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS AND NOT GIVE THEM THIER DUE." You really should give credit to Aunt Sally for your use of a strawman argument.

My mistake on the non-response accusation. I thought you'd present an idea of your own; now I see that your 'plan', deportation, is to maintain the status quo: business as usual. Btw, Obama has a strong record for deportation during his presidency-- I trust you'll give credit where credit's due. Well at least you were man enough to admit the mistake I've encountered dozens in my time posting at political forums that never would have ever done that. I'll give you that. Deportation isn't just a plan it is the law, they should try really doing it IMHO. SHOW ME WHERE I asked for prideful admiration from any member here. YOU REALLY SHOULD START THINKING ABOUT YOUR ACCUSATIONS BEFORE POSTING THEM . I stated I do not post other people's words without giving them due credit. Certainly not stories or poems/ sonnets. That's a statement of fact and surely not a call for admiration. It came to point out that its only right to do that. I give Obama the same criticism on the border failure and immigration mess that I gave Bush! I called them both traitors for going with the globalist agenda to keep that damn border open. Which is actually treason . --Tyr

[logroller]

You wouldn't, and won't understand log. It refers to HONESTY, and giving credit...as you would demand from others in other circumstances.
Once again. Your hypocrisy precedes you. You can hint all you want. But the TRUTH still breaks your back as you attempt to reason with your own STRAWMAN idea's.

why don't you cite that honesty clause in the constitution?

Public domain is a rather simple concept, it belongs to everybody-- anyone can use it without permission or attribution.

I don't think you understand what erecting a strawman means; and you certainly don't know, better than I what I would do. I know i don't concern myself with such, but perhaps I'm wrong---Show me one instance (outside this thread, which was turnabout: fairplay) where I accused another of plagiarism-- just one time that I did so....Shouldn't be that difficult if what you say of my hypocrisy is true.

[jimnyc]

Her opinion of the Constitution determine whether laws are Constitutional. Justices typically rule on very narrow issues that come before the court and there isn't any willy-nilly among them.

To an extent. I said I don't think they could do the willy nilly thing. As in, they can't go with their opinion if their opinion in itself is unconstitutional. But anyway, I think it's improper for ANY sitting judge to criticize our laws and/or what our laws are called. Like I said, illegal immigration and 'illegal immigrants' has been a term since our country started. It's not insulting, it's a factual term to describe those who illegally enter our country. To want that to change certainly leads me to believe that she leans towards sympathy for the illegals. That would make me wonder if/when/ever she has to decide a case involving illegals. Listening to her speak, for a moment there I thought I was listening to an activist.

[fj1200]

To an extent. I said I don't think they could do the willy nilly thing. As in, they can't go with their opinion if their opinion in itself is unconstitutional. But anyway, I think it's improper for ANY sitting judge to criticize our laws and/or what our laws are called. Like I said, illegal immigration and 'illegal immigrants' has been a term since our country started. It's not insulting, it's a factual term to describe those who illegally enter our country. To want that to change certainly leads me to believe that she leans towards sympathy for the illegals. That would make me wonder if/when/ever she has to decide a case involving illegals. Listening to her speak, for a moment there I thought I was listening to an activist.

Right, they don't because I generally think that they don't want to be soon as foolish in front of the other 8 justices or the rest of America for that matter. Nevertheless I happen to agree to some extent that many do it to be insulting and agree to some extent with anton that if we want to just right off another non-white voting bloc we'll come up with better rationale as to why illegal immigration is not in our best interest.

[aboutime]

What I find even more surprising, hearing Sotomayer say she is Insulted with Illegal Immigrants being called criminal....is, how she never once EXPOSES her silent Agreement with Obama when he calls people like me A TERRORIST, or RACIST because I am former Military, and Disagree with OBAMA.

I might feel supportive of her WHINING...if she felt the same way about a President who calls AMERICAN CITIZENS like me...HIS ENEMY???

Hypocrisy is everywhere. But those who SUPPORT NO-BAMA without question. Just aren't intelligent enough to see...he feels the same about them.

[jimnyc]

Right, they don't because I generally think that they don't want to be soon as foolish in front of the other 8 justices or the rest of America for that matter. Nevertheless I happen to agree to some extent that many do it to be insulting and agree to some extent with anton that if we want to just right off another non-white voting bloc we'll come up with better rationale as to why illegal immigration is not in our best interest.

Is the term illegal immigrant discriminatory against non-whites? I'm confident that the laws apply equally to white people. Of course there happen to be many more people of color who are involved in illegal immigration, but I hardly think the term should be changed as a result of that. It's no fault of our laws WHO commits the crime, so making it sound like a racist thing of sorts is wrong. It's the law, plain and simple. I think LEGAL immigration is in our best interest. We should have ZERO interest in promoting something that is against the law. We succeeded as a country for a LONG, LONG time with people following the laws and coming here legally.

As for Sotomayor, I just hope she doesn't go as far as Samuel Chase, who was impeached due to his "partisan leanings". Granted, it was a long time ago, but precedent is precedent. Her words seemed like she is certainly partisan towards those labeled illegal immigrants. Of course there is no law against that and she is free to say as much. But if she were to use this "opinion" to vote against established laws and prior court decisions? Lord knows in this day and time it would likely be ignored, but again, a sitting SC judge is only opening themselves up for further scrutiny if they are going to publicly decry 200+ years of law and terminology. I suppose she'll be the judge leading the charge against the "Washington Redskins", as the name is insulting.

[fj1200]

Is the term illegal immigrant discriminatory against non-whites? I'm confident that the laws apply equally to white people. Of course there happen to be many more people of color who are involved in illegal immigration, but I hardly think the term should be changed as a result of that. It's no fault of our laws WHO commits the crime, so making it sound like a racist thing of sorts is wrong. It's the law, plain and simple. I think LEGAL immigration is in our best interest. We should have ZERO interest in promoting something that is against the law. We succeeded as a country for a LONG, LONG time with people following the laws and coming here legally.

As for Sotomayor, I just hope she doesn't go as far as Samuel Chase, who was impeached due to his "partisan leanings". Granted, it was a long time ago, but precedent is precedent. Her words seemed like she is certainly partisan towards those labeled illegal immigrants. Of course there is no law against that and she is free to say as much. But if she were to use this "opinion" to vote against established laws and prior court decisions? Lord knows in this day and time it would likely be ignored, but again, a sitting SC judge is only opening themselves up for further scrutiny if they are going to publicly decry 200+ years of law and terminology. I suppose she'll be the judge leading the charge against the "Washington Redskins", as the name is insulting.

If I lived south of the border in some crap-hole country I'd be breaking our immigration laws too. And I'm not making this a "racist" issue, I'm stating my opinion that going out of the way to classify illegal immigrants as criminals in the same manner as law breakers that we actually prosecute is counterproductive.

[jimnyc]

If I lived south of the border in some crap-hole country I'd be breaking our immigration laws too. And I'm not making this a "racist" issue, I'm stating my opinion that going out of the way to classify illegal immigrants as criminals in the same manner as law breakers that we actually prosecute is counterproductive.

No doubt I would want to come here too if I were in a shitty position elsewhere, but I think I would be looking at it as permanent, and would want to do it the right way, legally, so I don't have to hide 24x7. And I don't think people are suddenly going out of their way, but rather the terminology was used within our government and laws since pretty much the beginning of us having a government and laws. And honestly, I don't think it's either counterproductive or productive - but simply a designation given to a set of people who are in our country, but came here illegally. I see NO reason to want to negotiate or be politically correct with a group of people not respecting our laws.

These people are designated differently as they are not citizens and their crime continues, unlike other "similar" crimes people refer to, in which people either pay fines or do their time. These illegals are continually "illegal" and continually costing our country & our communities money. They fill many of our jails. They utilize major resources like ER's and we the taxpayers foot the bill. Some take jobs away from legal people and don't pay taxes on top of that. Don't even get me started on illegals getting free benefits from our country while others in need don't get it. And I don't think making nice with them is a way of discouraging others from following in their footsteps. Those few things alone are not in our best interest.

I suppose mine is just my opinion too. But I'm not about to drop political correctness to appease people who came here illegally, or to get their vote, or the vote of those of the same color who did come here legally.

[fj1200]

No doubt I would want to come here too if I were in a shitty position elsewhere, but I think I would be looking at it as permanent, and would want to do it the right way, legally, so I don't have to hide 24x7. And I don't think people are suddenly going out of their way, but rather the terminology was used within our government and laws since pretty much the beginning of us having a government and laws. And honestly, I don't think it's either counterproductive or productive - but simply a designation given to a set of people who are in our country, but came here illegally. I see NO reason to want to negotiate or be politically correct with a group of people not respecting our laws.

These people are designated differently as they are not citizens and their crime continues, unlike other "similar" crimes people refer to, in which people either pay fines or do their time. These illegals are continually "illegal" and continually costing our country & our communities money. They fill many of our jails. They utilize major resources like ER's and we the taxpayers foot the bill. Some take jobs away from legal people and don't pay taxes on top of that. Don't even get me started on illegals getting free benefits from our country while others in need don't get it. And I don't think making nice with them is a way of discouraging others from following in their footsteps. Those few things alone are not in our best interest.

I suppose mine is just my opinion too. But I'm not about to drop political correctness to appease people who came here illegally, or to get their vote, or the vote of those of the same color who did come here legally.

Legally? F' that. I wouldn't give a whit about a hardly used law in a first world country when being stuck in BF Latin America. Add a family into the mix? I'm not going to wait for a bureaucrat to care about me.

Anyway, there is a difference between using an accurate term of illegal immigrant and going out of my way to blame many of the country's problems on illegal immigration and them being outright criminal merely for crossing a line. That being said, I'd still close the border and create a program to allow guest workers to fill legitimate jobs.

[Gaffer]

If it was determined that most illegals would be voting republican if amnesty was granted does anyone think the liberals would be pushing so hard for amnesty? It's about establishing a new voting block.

[jimnyc]

Legally? F' that. I wouldn't give a whit about a hardly used law in a first world country when being stuck in BF Latin America. Add a family into the mix? I'm not going to wait for a bureaucrat to care about me.

Anyway, there is a difference between using an accurate term of illegal immigrant and going out of my way to blame many of the country's problems on illegal immigration and them being outright criminal merely for crossing a line. That being said, I'd still close the border and create a program to allow guest workers to fill legitimate jobs.

Hardly used? Deportations of illegal immigrants in the past few years stands at 200,000 - 400,000+. But I agree, it should be more. Many are not even counted, where many are caught in the middle of the act, arrested and recorded and immediately sent back.

But many of our countries problems are from illegal immigration. And they did commit a criminal act in crossing the line. Then the criminal actions start piling up from there, as they are now going to need to remain illegal in order to survive. This leads to illegal jobs, illegal housing, illegal documents and of course let's not leave out other crimes that are committed outside of immigration issues, hence so many of them finding their way into our prison system. And some think the answer is to ignore the crimes and label them "undocumented" and make roads to let them stay.

What other crimes are we, as a country, willing to forgive? There are a lot of crimes people commit in order to survive, to have a better life, do we appease all of them and make nicey nice? Do we relieve any others of penalties? What about people who steal because they are homeless and need to eat? What about a mother who's husband died, she can't find work for 6 months and has 2 little ones to feed, so she turns to prostitution. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Why would we forgive and encourage one and not the other?

[fj1200]

Hardly used? Deportations of illegal immigrants in the past few years stands at 200,000 - 400,000+. But I agree, it should be more. Many are not even counted, where many are caught in the middle of the act, arrested and recorded and immediately sent back.

But many of our countries problems are from illegal immigration. And they did commit a criminal act in crossing the line. Then the criminal actions start piling up from there, as they are now going to need to remain illegal in order to survive. This leads to illegal jobs, illegal housing, illegal documents and of course let's not leave out other crimes that are committed outside of immigration issues, hence so many of them finding their way into our prison system. And some think the answer is to ignore the crimes and label them "undocumented" and make roads to let them stay.

What other crimes are we, as a country, willing to forgive? There are a lot of crimes people commit in order to survive, to have a better life, do we appease all of them and make nicey nice? Do we relieve any others of penalties? What about people who steal because they are homeless and need to eat? What about a mother who's husband died, she can't find work for 6 months and has 2 little ones to feed, so she turns to prostitution. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Why would we forgive and encourage one and not the other?

In relation to the millions here? Yes, hardly used. I agree that we have many problems stemming from immigration, though no one counts benefits when stating the costs, but there is the crime of crossing the border and the more serious crimes that may occur afterward. I just think we shouldn't tar all when some are at fault. I also don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore the actual criminals and just let them stay.

You may be getting a bit off track of where I actually stand. We do need to crack down on the real crimes that happen after they arrive and we also need to know who is in the country. Create a program that tracks allowed guest workers, tax them, and let them live in the open. We just don't need to get bogged down in language that serves no constructive purpose.

[jimnyc]

In relation to the millions here? Yes, hardly used. I agree that we have many problems stemming from immigration, though no one counts benefits when stating the costs, but there is the crime of crossing the border and the more serious crimes that may occur afterward. I just think we shouldn't tar all when some are at fault. I also don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore the actual criminals and just let them stay.

You may be getting a bit off track of where I actually stand. We do need to crack down on the real crimes that happen after they arrive and we also need to know who is in the country. Create a program that tracks allowed guest workers, tax them, and let them live in the open. We just don't need to get bogged down in language that serves no constructive purpose.

Maybe we could just create a massive electric shock to those trying to cross illegally? This shock would kill them instantly. Let it work for about 100-200 or so people and then turn it off. Watch the numbers of those sneaking in come to a screeching halt! ;)

Or on a more serious side, enforce HUGE penalties to those that hire illegals. HUGE penalties for those illegally housing them. HUGE penalties for anyone creating documents for them. Make it so that no on will want to "help" illegals. Then on the other side, maybe make the process for foreigners to come here a little cheaper, a little faster. Take away the incentive on one side and show them it's easier to go the legal route.

[fj1200]

Maybe we could just create a massive electric shock to those trying to cross illegally? This shock would kill them instantly. Let it work for about 100-200 or so people and then turn it off. Watch the numbers of those sneaking in come to a screeching halt! ;)

Or on a more serious side, enforce HUGE penalties to those that hire illegals. HUGE penalties for those illegally housing them. HUGE penalties for anyone creating documents for them. Make it so that no on will want to "help" illegals. Then on the other side, maybe make the process for foreigners to come here a little cheaper, a little faster. Take away the incentive on one side and show them it's easier to go the legal route.

I take it you've seen the study where a monkey is shocked when he tries to get the food so many times that eventually the rest of the monkeys actively prevent new monkeys from trying to get the same food? :hide:

Penalties for crimes is fine but I'm generally against huge penalties on private individuals when it's the government's fault that the border is so porous. Having landlords do immigration checks, for example, goes too far for me.

[jimnyc]

I take it you've seen the study where a monkey is shocked when he tries to get the food so many times that eventually the rest of the monkeys actively prevent new monkeys from trying to get the same food? :hide:

Penalties for crimes is fine but I'm generally against huge penalties on private individuals when it's the government's fault that the border is so porous. Having landlords do immigration checks, for example, goes too far for me.


http://i.imgur.com/CcLDob9.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://i.imgur.com/CcLDob9.jpg Need to place tents and bomb jackets on those monkeys and you'd have the current jihad crop inflicting so much murder upon the world. Even would look quite similar too... :laugh:--Tyr