Re: Is A Fertilized Egg A Human "Person"? COLORADO Anti-Abortion Religi-Freaks Get Vote Onto Ballot!
Reality_CheckŠ
"sweetbum" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c498caae-29ef-4f39...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Which naturally prompts the question: Can an embryo be tried as an
> adult?
>
> --------------------------
> "Voters Will Be Asked When 'Personhood' Begins"
>
> By Ashley Surdin
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Sunday, July 13, 2008; A04
>
>
> LOS ANGELES -- A proposal to define a fertilized human egg as a person
> will land on Colorado's ballot this November, marking the first time
> that the question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere
> in the nation.
>
> The Human Life Amendment, also known as the personhood amendment, says
> the words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should
> "include any human being from the moment of fertilization." If voters
> agreed, legal experts say, it would give fertilized eggs the same
> legal rights and protections to which people are entitled.
>
> The ballot initiative is funded by Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-
> roots antiabortion organization. Its purpose, initiative sponsor
> Kristi Burton said, is to lay a legal and legislative basis for
> protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to
> modifying other laws for the same purpose, she said.
>
> As to what laws could then be modified, Burton would not elaborate.
> "We try not to focus on some of the issues that will be taken care of
> later on," she said, repeatedly saying that the amendment is not aimed
> at outlawing abortion.
>
> But that is the objective, according to one of the measure's biggest
> supporters, Colorado Right to Life. "The goal is to restore legal
> protection to preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which
> is the only way we're going to stop abortion," said Leslie Hanks, vice
> president of the group.
>
> Critics say the aim is not just to outlaw abortion in Colorado but
> ultimately to overturn Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that
> would bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, proponents of
> the measure hope, a conservative majority would strike down the 1973
> decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
>
> And the amendment carries broader implications, critics say, such as
> limiting medical research involving embryos, inviting intrusive
> government oversight of pregnancies, and banning certain
> contraception, including the morning-after pill and the intrauterine
> device, or IUD.
>
> "If we give fertilized eggs legal rights, abortion could be considered
> murder and a woman could be sent to jail for making the difficult life
> decision to terminate a pregnancy," said Crystal Clinkenbeard,
> spokeswoman for Protect Families, Protect Choice, a coalition of
> medical professionals, community groups and religious leaders who
> oppose the amendment.
>
> The measure also could expand the reach of the law into other arenas,
> legal experts say. For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be
> held responsible if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally.
> If she smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be
> considered negligence. Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary
> damages. The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical
> research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused
> eggs could be considered homicide.
>
> "Because this amendment would define a person in a given way and
> expand the universe of who persons are, it expands the reach of laws
> that deal with persons," said Bill Araiza, a law professor at Loyola
> University in Los Angeles.
>
> The amendment also calls into question pregnant women's medical
> access, said Scott Moss, a professor at the University of Colorado Law
> School. "If a pregnant woman is really two people with exactly equal
> rights, then it is not clear the pregnant woman can undergo any
> medical treatment that jeopardizes a fertilized egg," he said, adding
> that the amendment would generate a flood of litigation.
>
> Colorado is the first state to succeed in putting this particular
> question to voters, but several others have tried to recognize
> fertilized eggs as persons through ballot initiatives or legislation.
>
> "Even though the success wasn't immediate, this battle isn't over,"
> said Robert Muise, a lawyer with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law
> Center, a Christian public interest firm that has drafted language for
> efforts in Oregon, Montana and Georgia. "This is just the first
> round."
>
> Colorado's initiative has proved divisive among abortion opponents.
> Hanks, from Colorado Right to Life, said a memo had been circulating
> among legislators and antiabortion leaders arguing that the timing and
> language of the measure are not right.
>
> Groups such as National Right to Life, which separated itself from its
> Colorado counterpart over a separate issue, and Focus on the Family
> have not supported the initiative either, Hanks said. "They surely
> haven't helped us," she said. "We've gone this alone in Colorado."
>
> Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issues analysis at Focus on
> the Family, said the organization supports efforts to ban abortion,
> but not the Colorado strategy. "In our view, you don't have to have a
> personhood amendment before the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. You
> just need the right court. So we are more interested in the makeup of
> the court than what particular challenge comes before the court," she
> said.
>
> The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the measure could go before
> voters in November, but it is unclear whether support will be found at
> the polls.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201615.html
Deadrat
news:be8m74lo0cjj71404...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:51:06 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
So is every driver.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the executive is
noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central Committee.
> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
This bill purports to change the definition of citizenship to require
parental citizenship. Let's deal with the ignorance part of this first:
the Supreme Court has already dealt with this issue, so this isn't going
to work.
Now let's consider the unamerican portion. The bill would change
citizenship from a right acquired by birth to a right acquired by blood.
Because of our history, that's not the way we do things in this country.
Why do you hate America?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:51:06 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <6e049rF...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>
>>
Or the abject ignorance and bigotry of shiteating anti-immigration scumbags.
Deadrat
news:pu5o745qnqofkr32m...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:33:48 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <0BIek.17912$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>>>
>>> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
>>
>> So is every driver.
>
> The action of driving is not in and of itself illegal.
And that invalidates my point how? If you define being in the country
without authorization as a criminal act, then of course every illegal
alien is a criminal. And if you define exceeding the speed limit as a
criminal act, then every driver in the country is also a criminal.
Not convinced? How about this. In America, you're not a criminal unless
you've been convicted of a crime. In other words, innocent until proven
guilty. Our Constitution applies that prescription to everyone within
its jurisdiction and not just citizens. But you obviously know better.
So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>
>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>
> Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
By definition all absolute rules surrender reason to the arbitrary.
But thanks for playing.
>>> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>>
>> Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the
>> executive is
>>noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central
>>Committee.
>
> I prefer you report my observation of the law.
The law requires that those accused of a crime be able to challenge their
incarceration. It's called habeas corpus. I gather you and the worst
President of all time don't agree. But it's the foundation of our system
of laws.
I ask again: why do you hate America?
>>> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
>>
>>This bill purports to change the definition of citizenship to require
>>parental citizenship. Let's deal with the ignorance part of this
>>first: the Supreme Court has already dealt with this issue, so this
>>isn't going to work.
>
> But a Constitutional Amendment would.
So you agree; it would take an Amendment. Thus HR 1940 is nothing but
useless posturing by xenophobic rightards who either don't understand how
our system works or do understand but have decided to play credulous
ignoramuses like you. Which do you think it is?
>>Now let's consider the unamerican portion. The bill would change
>>citizenship from a right acquired by birth to a right acquired by
>>blood.
>
> No it would not. Those who become citizens legally would have
> children who are citizens. Citizenship for those who do not have
> citizen parents would end.
What's the problem here? Is that you can't read or that you can't
understand what you read? Right now, unless your parents are diplomats,
you're an American if you're born here. Period. The bill purports to
change that by requiring that your veins run with American blood, in
other words, that your parents be American citizens.
Is that clear or do I need to type more slowly?
>>Because of our history, that's not the way we do things in this
>>country.
>
> It is the way we should do this.
Here in the United States we do things differently. Not least because
our founders were suspicious of hereditary privileges of all types. They
were also not a fearful lot. Try to make them proud.
If you can't, maybe you'd be happier in Germany, where blud really
counts.
>>Why do you hate America?
>
> I don't, and your question is irrelevant.
My question is exactly on point. America for all its faults is as great
a place as it is because we don't do things your way. If you're too
ignorant to understand that, maybe you should learn some political
history. If you're too scared to understand that, maybe you should go
some place where you'll feel more secure.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:d86o74d8s9cers38m...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:59:27 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <6e182cF...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>
>>Or the abject ignorance and bigotry of shiteating anti-immigration
>>scumbags.
>>
>
>
> I would not know since I am not anti-immigration.
>
> I am anti-illegal immigration.
>
> Apparently you cannot see the difference.
>
<snip/>
Look, I understand that you're frightened. The Worst President of All Time
has got us into a seemingly endless war. He and his cronies have
undermined the economy as they've mocked the law. His incompetent
appointees can't seem to do anything right when everything seems to be
going wrong.
So you're looking for a scapegoat. I don't understand why you've chosen to
demonize the weakest among us, but you ought to knock it off.
America's founders for all their faults were brave men. Try to make them
proud.
Ray Fischer
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>
>>> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
>>
>> So is every driver.
>
>The action of driving is not in and of itself illegal.
The act of being in the United States is not, in and of itself, illegal.
>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>
>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>
>Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
Do you usually have delusions of godhood?
>>> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>>
>> Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the executive is
>>noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central Committee.
>
>I prefer you report my observation of the law.
Your observation of the law is 1) irrational, and 2) faulty. Note, for
example, your incorrect claim that "illegal alien is a criminal".
Completely untrue.
>>> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
>>
>>This bill purports to change the definition of citizenship to require
>>parental citizenship. Let's deal with the ignorance part of this first:
>>the Supreme Court has already dealt with this issue, so this isn't going
>>to work.
>
>But a Constitutional Amendment would.
No, it won't, because it's not going to happen.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deadrat
news:i0vo745vjh6ps2cm1...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:44:05 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <pWVek.16611$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:pu5o745qnqofkr32m...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:33:48 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <0BIek.17912$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>>>>>
>>>>> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
>>>>
>>>> So is every driver.
>>>
>>> The action of driving is not in and of itself illegal.
>>
>>And that invalidates my point how? If you define being in the country
>>without authorization as a criminal act, then of course every illegal
>>alien is a criminal.
>
> It is.
Did I say it isn't?
>> And if you define exceeding the speed limit as a
>>criminal act, then every driver in the country is also a criminal.
>
> Except of course the violation of law exists only while the limit is
> exceeded, unlike illegal aliens who are in violation of the law every
> second they are physically present inside the US.
The limit is a physical limit. Had trouble with the analogy section on
those standardized tests, I'll bet.
>>Not convinced?
>
> No.
>
>> How about this. In America, you're not a criminal unless
>>you've been convicted of a crime. In other words, innocent until
>>proven guilty. Our Constitution applies that prescription to everyone
>>within its jurisdiction and not just citizens. But you obviously know
>>better.
>
> It is not necessary to convict anyone to deport them. Ask ICE.
It is to make them a criminal. Try to stay focused here.
>>So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>
> Non Sequitur
Learn what a non sequitur is. Your objections are to things that are
basic to our system. Why would you want to change these foundations?
Asking whether you hate America is hyperbolic, but it's not a non
sequitur.
>>>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>>>
>>> Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
>>
>>By definition all absolute rules surrender reason to the arbitrary.
>
> You definition perhaps.
This isn't a matter of my private definition. An absolute rule precludes
discretion. Any reasoning about exceptions is prohibited.
>>But thanks for playing.
>
> You are welcome.
>
>>
>>>>> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>>>>
>>>> Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the
>>>> executive is
>>>>noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central
>>>>Committee.
>>>
>>> I prefer you report my observation of the law.
>>
>>The law requires that those accused of a crime be able to challenge
>>their incarceration. It's called habeas corpus. I gather you and the
>>worst President of all time don't agree. But it's the foundation of
>>our system of laws.
>
> True, but no such action is required to deport those here illegally.
> Such deportations occur daily.
No doubt many illegal immigrants don't ask for a hearing since it would
be pointless, but the courts require they have the option.
>>I ask again: why do you hate America?
>
> Again, Non Sequitur
Again, look up non sequitur. When you do, you'll find the initial caps
aren't necessary.
>>>>> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
>>>>
>>>>This bill purports to change the definition of citizenship to
>>>>require parental citizenship. Let's deal with the ignorance part of
>>>>this first: the Supreme Court has already dealt with this issue, so
>>>>this isn't going to work.
>>>
>>> But a Constitutional Amendment would.
>>
>>So you agree; it would take an Amendment. Thus HR 1940 is nothing but
>>useless posturing by xenophobic rightards who either don't understand
>>how our system works or do understand but have decided to play
>>credulous ignoramuses like you. Which do you think it is?
>
> A good start.
So you think it's a good start that the sponsors of that bill are either
ignorant or they think you are? How amusing.
>>>>Now let's consider the unamerican portion. The bill would change
>>>>citizenship from a right acquired by birth to a right acquired by
>>>>blood.
>>>
>>> No it would not. Those who become citizens legally would have
>>> children who are citizens. Citizenship for those who do not have
>>> citizen parents would end.
>>
>>What's the problem here? Is that you can't read or that you can't
>>understand what you read? Right now, unless your parents are
>>diplomats, you're an American if you're born here. Period. The bill
>>purports to change that by requiring that your veins run with American
>>blood, in other words, that your parents be American citizens.
>
> Correct. But there are legal ways to become an American citizen,
> which does not include entering the country illegally.
Try to stay focused. I'm not saying that the only way to become a
citizen is to have parents who are citizens. I'm saying that your bill
requires that the only way to be born a citizen is by blood.
> Nor should
> such illegals be rewarded with citizenship for their children.
This is often more of a burden than a reward for the parents. Their kids
can stay, but they can be deported.
> It is common for pregnant women to sneak across the border at the last
> minute so their child can be an American citizen.
Cite, please. There are over 300M citizens of the US. How many are
anchor babies? I'm not buying the hordes of women in labor climbing
fences, swimming the Rio Grande, or hiking the Sonora desert to give
birth in the US.
> This should be stopped.
>>Is that clear or do I need to type more slowly?
>
> Quite clear.
>
>>
>>>>Because of our history, that's not the way we do things in this
>>>>country.
>>>
>>> It is the way we should do this.
>>
>>Here in the United States we do things differently. Not least
>>because our founders were suspicious of hereditary privileges of all
>>types. They were also not a fearful lot. Try to make them proud.
>
> Non Sequitur
Just because you're ignorant of the facts that make my points follow does
not make them non sequiturs.
>>If you can't, maybe you'd be happier in Germany, where blud really
>>counts.
>
> Yet anyone can get that 'blood' you seem to be fixated upon by simply
> following a legal path to citizenship.
Simply? Bwahahahahahaha!
> Of course, that is a bit more difficult than simply crossing a border
> and whelping in the proper place.
Many illegal immigrants risk the little they own and their lives and
safety to cross the border to work arduous jobs that require long hours
for little pay. Jobs you couldn't hack for fifteen minutes. All so they
can support their families. You profit every day from their labor, but
you demonize them.
Excuse me if I have more sympathy for them than I do for an ignoramus
like you.
>>>>Why do you hate America?
>>>
>>> I don't, and your question is irrelevant.
>>
>>My question is exactly on point.
>
> No, it is not. It has nothing to do with the issue.
It's a little hyperbolic. But if you don't like the things that make
this country what it is, what else should I conclude?
>> America for all its faults is as great
>>a place as it is because we don't do things your way.
>
> And just what way is that?
We have standards that say we value people for who they are and what they
make of themselves, not for where they came from or whom they're related
to. We require the process of law even for those who aren't citizens.
We try to apply the law with discretion and don't trust the executive
with unreviewed power.
If we fail in these ideals, it's because we're human and not because our
system is inhuman.
>> If you're too
>>ignorant to understand that, maybe you should learn some political
>>history.
>
> I am aware of political history, having lived a large part of the
> American version.
But nothing you've posted gives any evidence of that.
>> If you're too scared to understand that, maybe you should go
>>some place where you'll feel more secure.
>>
> I am secure here, and would like such security to remain.
If you feel so secure, why are you so afraid of illegal aliens?
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:qvvo74dh7kr3l21cq...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:48:31 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <z_Vek.16612$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:d86o74d8s9cers38m...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:59:27 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>> <the...@jonez.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <6e182cF...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>>
>>>>Or the abject ignorance and bigotry of shiteating anti-immigration
>>>>scumbags.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would not know since I am not anti-immigration.
>>>
>>> I am anti-illegal immigration.
>>>
>>> Apparently you cannot see the difference.
>>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>
> But I am not.
Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure seem
frightened.
> This is an issue I have supported for over a half century.
Now that's a non sequitur.
>>The Worst President of All Time
>>has got us into a seemingly endless war. He and his cronies have
>>undermined the economy as they've mocked the law. His incompetent
>>appointees can't seem to do anything right when everything seems to be
>>going wrong.
>
> All true.
>>So you're looking for a scapegoat.
>
> Not at all.
... he explained.
>> I don't understand why you've chosen to
>>demonize the weakest among us, but you ought to knock it off.
>
> Absolutely not, no matter how you propagandize my position.
... he explained.
>>America's founders for all their faults were brave men. Try to make
>>them proud.
>
> Non Sequitur
... he explained.
>
<snip/>
Ray Fischer
>On 15 Jul 2008 05:56:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>alt.abortion with message-id
><487c3c03$0$17234$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>
>>>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>>>
>>>>> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
>>>>
>>>> So is every driver.
>>>
>>>The action of driving is not in and of itself illegal.
>>
>>The act of being in the United States is not, in and of itself, illegal.
>
LOL! You're an idiot.
>>>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>>>
>>>Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
>>
>>Do you usually have delusions of godhood?
>
>The Drama Queen has spoken.
The asshole farts again.
>>>>> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>>>>
>>>> Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the executive is
>>>>noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central Committee.
>>>
>>>I prefer you report my observation of the law.
>>
>>Your observation of the law is 1) irrational, and 2) faulty. Note, for
>>example, your incorrect claim that "illegal alien is a criminal".
>>Completely untrue.
>
>Yet they are subject to deportation upon identification.
That does not alter the fact that YOU ARE A LIAR.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>
>>> But I am not.
>>
>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure seem
>>frightened.
>
>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
Outraged? Why?
Why do you care in the slightest?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deadrat
news:lpgq74dhqrvscn2cp...@4ax.com:
> Not really.
If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>
>>>>Not convinced?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> How about this. In America, you're not a criminal unless
>>>>you've been convicted of a crime. In other words, innocent until
>>>>proven guilty. Our Constitution applies that prescription to
>>>>everyone within its jurisdiction and not just citizens. But you
>>>>obviously know better.
>>>
>>> It is not necessary to convict anyone to deport them. Ask ICE.
>>
>>It is to make them a criminal. Try to stay focused here.
>
> As long as they are deported who cars what they are called?
You obviously do.
>>>>So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>>>
>>> Non Sequitur
>>
>>Learn what a non sequitur is. Your objections are to things that are
>>basic to our system.
>
> Illegal aliens are not basic to any system.
But our treatment of them under our laws is. Try to stay focused.
>> Why would you want to change these foundations?
>
> Illegal immigration is not a part of any foundation.
But our laws are. Try to stay focused.
>>Asking whether you hate America is hyperbolic, but it's not a non
>>sequitur.
>>
>>>>>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>By definition all absolute rules surrender reason to the arbitrary.
>>>
>>> You definition perhaps.
>>
>>This isn't a matter of my private definition. An absolute rule
>>precludes discretion. Any reasoning about exceptions is prohibited.
>
> There should be no exceptions to deportation.
Not even for people who are wrongly identified as illegal aliens?
>>>>But thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> You are welcome.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your valiant support of the untrammeled power of the
>>>>>> executive is
>>>>>>noted, Comrade, and will be reported with favor to the Central
>>>>>>Committee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer you report my observation of the law.
>>>>
>>>>The law requires that those accused of a crime be able to challenge
>>>>their incarceration. It's called habeas corpus. I gather you and
>>>>the worst President of all time don't agree. But it's the
>>>>foundation of our system of laws.
>>>
>>> True, but no such action is required to deport those here illegally.
>>> Such deportations occur daily.
>>
>>No doubt many illegal immigrants don't ask for a hearing since it
>>would be pointless, but the courts require they have the option.
>
> But as long as they are deported who cares?
Any patriotic American cares that the laws be observed and the rights of
everyone under the Constitution's jurisdiciton be preserved.
That's who.
I notice that leaves you out. Why do you hate America?
>>>>I ask again: why do you hate America?
>>>
>>> Again, Non Sequitur
>>
>>Again, look up non sequitur. When you do, you'll find the initial
>>caps aren't necessary.
>
> No, your comments aren't worth the effort.
What you mean is that educating yourself isn't worth the effort.
Your choice, of course.
>>>>>>> Support H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This bill purports to change the definition of citizenship to
>>>>>>require parental citizenship. Let's deal with the ignorance part
>>>>>>of this first: the Supreme Court has already dealt with this
>>>>>>issue, so this isn't going to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a Constitutional Amendment would.
>>>>
>>>>So you agree; it would take an Amendment. Thus HR 1940 is nothing
>>>>but useless posturing by xenophobic rightards who either don't
>>>>understand how our system works or do understand but have decided to
>>>>play credulous ignoramuses like you. Which do you think it is?
>>>
>>> A good start.
>>
>>So you think it's a good start that the sponsors of that bill are
>>either ignorant or they think you are? How amusing.
>
> It is a good start toward the eventual Amendment.
It's no start at all. Do you understand so little about our system that
you don't even know how the Constitution is amended?
>>>>>>Now let's consider the unamerican portion. The bill would change
>>>>>>citizenship from a right acquired by birth to a right acquired by
>>>>>>blood.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it would not. Those who become citizens legally would have
>>>>> children who are citizens. Citizenship for those who do not have
>>>>> citizen parents would end.
>>>>
>>>>What's the problem here? Is that you can't read or that you can't
>>>>understand what you read? Right now, unless your parents are
>>>>diplomats, you're an American if you're born here. Period. The
>>>>bill purports to change that by requiring that your veins run with
>>>>American blood, in other words, that your parents be American
>>>>citizens.
>>>
>>> Correct. But there are legal ways to become an American citizen,
>>> which does not include entering the country illegally.
>>
>>Try to stay focused. I'm not saying that the only way to become a
>>citizen is to have parents who are citizens. I'm saying that your
>>bill requires that the only way to be born a citizen is by blood.
>
> Yes.
What was so hard about that? You do want to change citizenship from a
right acquired by birth to a right acquired by blood. I'm glad you're
finally owning your position.
Now why do you hate America?
>>> Nor should
>>> such illegals be rewarded with citizenship for their children.
>>
>>This is often more of a burden than a reward for the parents. Their
>>kids can stay, but they can be deported.
>
> It's their call.
How long have you had this cognitive problem? Who said it wasn't their
call? *You* said it's a reward. Some reward.
>>> It is common for pregnant women to sneak across the border at the
>>> last minute so their child can be an American citizen.
>>
>>Cite, please. There are over 300M citizens of the US. How many are
>>anchor babies? I'm not buying the hordes of women in labor climbing
>>fences, swimming the Rio Grande, or hiking the Sonora desert to give
>>birth in the US.
>
> OK.
OK? OK, so you mean you just made this up.
>>> This should be stopped.
>>
>>>>Is that clear or do I need to type more slowly?
>>>
>>> Quite clear.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Because of our history, that's not the way we do things in this
>>>>>>country.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the way we should do this.
>>>>
>>>>Here in the United States we do things differently. Not least
>>>>because our founders were suspicious of hereditary privileges of all
>>>>types. They were also not a fearful lot. Try to make them proud.
>>>
>>> Non Sequitur
>>
>>Just because you're ignorant of the facts that make my points follow
>>does not make them non sequiturs.
>
> I am not ignorant of any facts. I am saying they do not matter and
> are irrelevant.
So you want to ignore our history and the Constitution that arose from
that history. Exactly what I'd expect from someone who hates America.
>>>>If you can't, maybe you'd be happier in Germany, where blud really
>>>>counts.
>>>
>>> Yet anyone can get that 'blood' you seem to be fixated upon by
>>> simply following a legal path to citizenship.
>>
>>Simply? Bwahahahahahaha!
>
> Yes, simply. Or not simply. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't? Then why did you say it?
>>> Of course, that is a bit more difficult than simply crossing a
>>> border and whelping in the proper place.
>>
>>Many illegal immigrants risk the little they own and their lives and
>>safety to cross the border to work arduous jobs that require long
>>hours for little pay.
>
> That is their choice and their risk.
>
>> Jobs you couldn't hack for fifteen minutes.
>
> Irrelevant, even if true.
>
>> All so they can support their families.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> You profit every day from their labor, but
>>you demonize them.
>
> No, I would deport them.
And until then you demonize them in the hope that you can change America
into your own frightened image.
>>Excuse me if I have more sympathy for them than I do for an ignoramus
>>like you.
>
> Yawn.
Oh, sorry. I'm I boring you?
>>>>>>Why do you hate America?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't, and your question is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>My question is exactly on point.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. It has nothing to do with the issue.
>>
>>It's a little hyperbolic. But if you don't like the things that make
>>this country what it is, what else should I conclude?
>
> Illegal immigration did nothing to make this country what it is.
Aside from being important to the economy?
>>>> America for all its faults is as great
>>>>a place as it is because we don't do things your way.
>>>
>>> And just what way is that?
>>
>>We have standards that say we value people for who they are and what
>>they make of themselves, not for where they came from or whom they're
>>related to.
>
> Irrelevant.
Our standards and values are irrelevant to you. Exactly what I'd expect
from someone who hates America.
>> We require the process of law even for those who aren't citizens.
>>We try to apply the law with discretion and don't trust the executive
>>with unreviewed power.
>>
>>If we fail in these ideals, it's because we're human and not because
>>our system is inhuman.
>
> None of that matters as far as illegal immigration is concerned.
Exactly what I'd expect from someone who hates America.
>>>> If you're too
>>>>ignorant to understand that, maybe you should learn some political
>>>>history.
>>>
>>> I am aware of political history, having lived a large part of the
>>> American version.
>>
>>But nothing you've posted gives any evidence of that.
>
> I don't post for your education.
And yet your posts still give away your ignorance.
>>>> If you're too scared to understand that, maybe you should go
>>>>some place where you'll feel more secure.
>>>>
>>> I am secure here, and would like such security to remain.
>>
>>If you feel so secure, why are you so afraid of illegal aliens?
>>
>><snip/>
>
> I am not. I simply want them back where they came from.
Deadrat
news:hdhq74tvekp2b30sj...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:42:09 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <lz3fk.2126$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:qvvo74dh7kr3l21cq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:48:31 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <z_Vek.16612$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:d86o74d8s9cers38m...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:59:27 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>>> <the...@jonez.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> <6e182cF...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This reminds me of a law making pi = 4.0000000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or the abject ignorance and bigotry of shiteating anti-immigration
>>>>>>scumbags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not know since I am not anti-immigration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am anti-illegal immigration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you cannot see the difference.
>>>>>
>>>><snip/>
>>>>
>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>
>>> But I am not.
>>
>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure
>>seem frightened.
>
> You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
Outraged? By what? People without visas picking lettuce?
Admit it. You're frightened and looking for someone to blame.
>>> This is an issue I have supported for over a half century.
>>
>>Now that's a non sequitur.
>
> No, I have opposed illegal immigrants for as long as I knew they
> existed.
Hint: the amount of time you've spent in ignorant opposition doesn't
matter.
>>>>The Worst President of All Time
>>>>has got us into a seemingly endless war. He and his cronies have
>>>>undermined the economy as they've mocked the law. His incompetent
>>>>appointees can't seem to do anything right when everything seems to
>>>>be going wrong.
>>>
>>> All true.
>>
>>>>So you're looking for a scapegoat.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>>... he explained.
>
> You are the one who brought politics into this. As far as I am
> concerned it is a very simple issue with a very simple and
> uncomplicated answer.
As H. L. Mencken said, "For every problem, there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong."
>>>> I don't understand why you've chosen to
>>>>demonize the weakest among us, but you ought to knock it off.
>>>
>>> Absolutely not, no matter how you propagandize my position.
>>
>>... he explained.
>>
>>>>America's founders for all their faults were brave men. Try to make
>>>>them proud.
>>>
>>> Non Sequitur
>>
>>... he explained.
>>>
>><snip/>
>
> I see you have exhausted your facts and now are attempting ridicule.
> Pathetic.
You don't understand the law; you don't understand the Constitution; you
don't understand our political history; you make up your "facts."
Now *that's* pathetic.
And you don't think you're worthy of ridicule?
<snip/>
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure seem
>>>>frightened.
>>>
>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>
>>Outraged? Why?
>
>That these illegals can even get in.
That is irrational. Are you outraged that people can drive 68mph
on the freeway? Are you outraged that people jaywalk?
>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>
>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>do so.
I see nobody bragging. Again, you are irrational and when people
become irrational and angry it's usually because they are frightened.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deadrat
news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:09:56 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <Uggfk.18089$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
<snip/>
>>> Not really.
>>
>>If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>
> That's your problem, not mine.
Well, possibly. If there are enough ignoramuses around like you, then
the center cannot hold. Which is why I consider it a public service to
demonstrate your ignorance and your callousness and your hatred for
America.
>>>>>>Not convinced?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How about this. In America, you're not a criminal unless
>>>>>>you've been convicted of a crime. In other words, innocent until
>>>>>>proven guilty. Our Constitution applies that prescription to
>>>>>>everyone within its jurisdiction and not just citizens. But you
>>>>>>obviously know better.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not necessary to convict anyone to deport them. Ask ICE.
>>>>
>>>>It is to make them a criminal. Try to stay focused here.
>>>
>>> As long as they are deported who cars what they are called?
>>
>>You obviously do.
>
> Not really. The objective is more important than the language used to
> get there.
<shrug>
If you really believed that, then you wouldn't use the language you do.
</shrug>
>>>>>>So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Non Sequitur
>>>>
>>>>Learn what a non sequitur is. Your objections are to things that
>>>>are basic to our system.
>>>
>>> Illegal aliens are not basic to any system.
>>
>>But our treatment of them under our laws is. Try to stay focused.
>
> The only treatment they should receive is deportation. Prompt and
> unavoidable deportation.
Your disregard for our legal system and legal traditions is clear.
Why do you hate America?
>>>> Why would you want to change these foundations?
>>>
>>> Illegal immigration is not a part of any foundation.
>>
>>But our laws are. Try to stay focused.
>
> I am. Illegals are breaking our laws simply by their presence. End
> this lawbreaking by ending their presence.
Your fear is so overwhelming that all you can see is illegals.
Sometimes you see them when they're not there, like all those pregnant
Mexican women swimming the Rio Grande. But we're talking about how this
country deals with illegal immigrants under our laws. Which laws you seem
to hate. Why is that?
>>>>Asking whether you hate America is hyperbolic, but it's not a non
>>>>sequitur.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By definition all absolute rules surrender reason to the
>>>>>>arbitrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> You definition perhaps.
>>>>
>>>>This isn't a matter of my private definition. An absolute rule
>>>>precludes discretion. Any reasoning about exceptions is prohibited.
>>>
>>> There should be no exceptions to deportation.
>>
>>Not even for people who are wrongly identified as illegal aliens?
>
> Of course they do not fit the requirement. But all of those who are
> illegal aliens should be deported without regard or consideration for
> any other factor.
You would cede to the executive the power to deport upon identification.
No appeals; no review. Someone wrongly identified would have no
opportunity to challenge the error. This is basically unamerican.
<snip/>
>>It's no start at all. Do you understand so little about our system
>>that you don't even know how the Constitution is amended?
>
> Since it has been done several times in my lifetime I am well aware of
> the process. The first step is to have a majority desire the
> amendment, and this law would call attention to the situation.
Frightened people like you have been screaming about this for a while now.
You think this hypocritical attempt to con the scared and the gullible is
worthwhile? Imagine my surprise.
<snip/>
>>What was so hard about that? You do want to change citizenship from a
>>right acquired by birth to a right acquired by blood. I'm glad you're
>>finally owning your position.
>
> Your implication goes far beyond that simple statement.
Learn the difference between my implication and your inference.
> You do not
> desire to publicize the fact that the parents could legally become
> citizens without being so born.
Of course, but that doesn't change the fact the citizenship will become
inherited.
<snip/>
>>> OK.
>>
>>OK? OK, so you mean you just made this up.
>
> No, it appears to be common enough to have a name for it.
Lots of things that don't exist have names. Extraterrestrial aliens who
visit earth. Spontaneous human combustion. Racial superiority.
Compassionate conservatism.
> That OK was
> simply a recognition of your 'not buying' the fact you just
> demonstrated.
I'm not buying something you just made up. Your claim; your burden of
proof.
<snip/>
>>So you want to ignore our history and the Constitution that arose from
>>that history.
>
> History is history, and does not always fit current conditions. I
> would alter the Constitution, not ignore it.
Sure you would. Your fear is that great.
>> Exactly what I'd expect from someone who hates America.
>>
>>>>>>If you can't, maybe you'd be happier in Germany, where blud really
>>>>>>counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet anyone can get that 'blood' you seem to be fixated upon by
>>>>> simply following a legal path to citizenship.
>>>>
>>>>Simply? Bwahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>> Yes, simply. Or not simply. It doesn't matter.
>>
>>It doesn't? Then why did you say it?
>
> Because being illegal is not an acceptable alternative, so it is
> either do it the legal (simple or not simple) way or not at all.
I don't object to finding a solution. I object to one that goes counter to
our values, that changes the Constitution out of fear, that demonizes the
most vulnerable people, and gives the executive even more power.
>>>>> Of course, that is a bit more difficult than simply crossing a
>>>>> border and whelping in the proper place.
>>>>
>>>>Many illegal immigrants risk the little they own and their lives and
>>>>safety to cross the border to work arduous jobs that require long
>>>>hours for little pay.
>>>
>>> That is their choice and their risk.
>>>
>>>> Jobs you couldn't hack for fifteen minutes.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, even if true.
>>>
>>>> All so they can support their families.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> You profit every day from their labor, but
>>>>you demonize them.
>>>
>>> No, I would deport them.
>>
>>And until then you demonize them in the hope that you can change
>>America into your own frightened image.
>
> No, I would deport them as lawbreakers. Nothing more.
You demonize vulnerable people, and you would trample our values to deport
them. That's what's more.
<snip/>
>>Aside from being important to the economy?
>
> Irrelevant, even if true. Which I do not accept.
Of course you don't. But that's because you're an ignoramus. Look up what
the SSA says about taxes it collects for benefits that it will never have
to pay out.
>>>>>> America for all its faults is as great
>>>>>>a place as it is because we don't do things your way.
>>>>>
>>>>> And just what way is that?
>>>>
>>>>We have standards that say we value people for who they are and what
>>>>they make of themselves, not for where they came from or whom
>>>>they're related to.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>Our standards and values are irrelevant to you. Exactly what I'd
>>expect from someone who hates America.
>
> No, those standards and values do not apply to illegals.
This shows the depths of your ignorance. Read the Bill of Rights. It
talks about people or persons or the accused. In other words it is not
reserved for citizens.
>>>> We require the process of law even for those who aren't citizens.
>>>>We try to apply the law with discretion and don't trust the
>>>>executive with unreviewed power.
>>>>
>>>>If we fail in these ideals, it's because we're human and not because
>>>>our system is inhuman.
>>>
>>> None of that matters as far as illegal immigration is concerned.
>>
>>Exactly what I'd expect from someone who hates America.
>>
>>>>>> If you're too
>>>>>>ignorant to understand that, maybe you should learn some political
>>>>>>history.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am aware of political history, having lived a large part of the
>>>>> American version.
>>>>
>>>>But nothing you've posted gives any evidence of that.
>>>
>>> I don't post for your education.
>>
>>And yet your posts still give away your ignorance.
>
> What ignorance? Illegals are illegal, by definition. They should be
> deported upon identification, and the system should insure they are
> identified whenever and wherever possible.
You broadcast your fear and ignorance every time you post. "Our values do
not apply to illegals," you say, apparently unaware of how and why we have
the system we do.
Why do you think I keep talking to you? Every time you post you show
yourself as ignorant and frightened. You undercut your cause every time
you open your mouth.
Keep it up.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:pjer749v5v4t3brcq...@4ax.com:
> On 16 Jul 2008 03:03:27 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <487d64ff$0$17146$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>
>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure
>>>>seem frightened.
>>>
>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>
>>Outraged? Why?
>
> That these illegals can even get in.
That's *what* you claim to be outraged about. We get that. Now *why* are
you outraged?
>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>
> I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
> do so.
Brag about it? You don't know any illegals. How would you know what they
"brag about"?
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:ener74h4jce9d7jr5...@4ax.com:
> People in the country illegally. Why, what they are doing, who they
> are - none of that matters.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question. *Why* are you outraged about this
and not say, the Worst President of All Time politicizing the Justice
Department.
>
>>Admit it. You're frightened and looking for someone to blame.
>
> Why should anyone be frightened about a bunch of illegals?
Good question. Why *are* you so frightened?
> That makes no sense.
And you don't.
>>>>> This is an issue I have supported for over a half century.
>>>>
>>>>Now that's a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> No, I have opposed illegal immigrants for as long as I knew they
>>> existed.
>>
>>Hint: the amount of time you've spent in ignorant opposition doesn't
>>matter.
>
> True. But it does indicate sustained commitment.
Thanks for sharing, but no one asked.
>>>>>>The Worst President of All Time
>>>>>>has got us into a seemingly endless war. He and his cronies have
>>>>>>undermined the economy as they've mocked the law. His incompetent
>>>>>>appointees can't seem to do anything right when everything seems
>>>>>>to be going wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> All true.
>>>>
>>>>>>So you're looking for a scapegoat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>>... he explained.
>>>
>>> You are the one who brought politics into this. As far as I am
>>> concerned it is a very simple issue with a very simple and
>>> uncomplicated answer.
>>
>>As H. L. Mencken said, "For every problem, there is a solution that is
>>simple, neat, and wrong."
>
> Cute, but irrelevant. Deportation is not wrong.
Who says it is? Your way of going about it is unamerican though.
What's the problem here? Why can you not stay focused on the issues?
>>>>>> I don't understand why you've chosen to
>>>>>>demonize the weakest among us, but you ought to knock it off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely not, no matter how you propagandize my position.
>>>>
>>>>... he explained.
>>>>
>>>>>>America's founders for all their faults were brave men. Try to
>>>>>>make them proud.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non Sequitur
>>>>
>>>>... he explained.
>>>>>
>>>><snip/>
>>>
>>> I see you have exhausted your facts and now are attempting ridicule.
>>> Pathetic.
>>
>>You don't understand the law; you don't understand the Constitution;
>>you don't understand our political history; you make up your "facts."
>
> I understand the Constitution (which is why I want it changed),
If you understood this part of the Constitution, then you would
understand its importance. But you don't.
> political history is irrelevant,
Does it hurt to be that ignorant? Just wondering.
> and the facts are easily found in just about any public venue.
But you can't seem to find them. Go figure.
> Illegals are here.
> They are illegal.
> They are being deported.
> They should be deported faster, and there should be more of those
> deportations.
Some of this is fact; some of this is arguable opinion. None of it has
anything to do with this discussion, namely your unreasoned fear of
illegals and your willingness to subvert the Constitution.
>>Now *that's* pathetic.
>>
>>And you don't think you're worthy of ridicule?
>><snip/>
>
> Anything to deflect my suggestions.
Your suggestions are odious to patriotic Americans and moral human
beings, and every time you post one of your ignorant screeds, you
demonstrate your fear, your weakness, and how much you hate America.
Keep it up.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:02hs74lpvkfcshle0...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT, in alt.abortion, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
<snip/>
> I am surprised at the number of people that demand removal of
> unlawful immigrants, when they are all basically all defendants of
^^^^^^^^^^
Interesting slip.
> unwanted immigrants themselves.
The situations aren't parallel, in that the previous waves of immigrants
were legal, welcomed for the purpose of driving the US industrial machine.
But they were demonized in the same way by xenophobes -- for their foreign
nature, supposed lack of loyalty, for their absence of hygiene, for their
inability to speak English, and so on. The Mexican immigrants of today
remind me of the Chinese before 1882, when they were excluded. Today it's
stoop agri-labor; then it was railroads.
> I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who are
> willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
> (on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
> like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>
> The new Citizenship police where black trenchcoats? <"papers, show us
> your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police coming
> to a check point near you, soon!
Fear does that to people.
>><snip/>
Deadrat
news:lb2t74t6esop0og17...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <UYnfk.29708$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:09:56 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <Uggfk.18089$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>>>If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>>>
>>> That's your problem, not mine.
>>
>>Well, possibly. If there are enough ignoramuses around like you, then
>>the center cannot hold. Which is why I consider it a public service
>>to demonstrate your ignorance and your callousness and your hatred for
>>America.
>
> Demonstrate away.
That's what this thread has been about. Thanks for your help.
>>>>>>>>Not convinced?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about this. In America, you're not a criminal unless
>>>>>>>>you've been convicted of a crime. In other words, innocent
>>>>>>>>until proven guilty. Our Constitution applies that prescription
>>>>>>>>to everyone within its jurisdiction and not just citizens. But
>>>>>>>>you obviously know better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not necessary to convict anyone to deport them. Ask ICE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is to make them a criminal. Try to stay focused here.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as they are deported who cars what they are called?
>>>>
>>>>You obviously do.
>>>
>>> Not really. The objective is more important than the language used
>>> to get there.
>>
>><shrug>
>>If you really believed that, then you wouldn't use the language you
>>do. </shrug>
>
> Sorry. I only speak English. By choice.
And not that well. You mean, "I speak only English."
And you've missed the point (again). "Language" here means your choice
of words, not whether you speak English or Swahili.
>>>>>>>>So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non Sequitur
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Learn what a non sequitur is. Your objections are to things that
>>>>>>are basic to our system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Illegal aliens are not basic to any system.
>>>>
>>>>But our treatment of them under our laws is. Try to stay focused.
>>>
>>> The only treatment they should receive is deportation. Prompt and
>>> unavoidable deportation.
>>
>>Your disregard for our legal system and legal traditions is clear.
>
> Such prompt deportation is well within our legal system. Why should
> they not be deported?
No one says that people here illegally shouldn't be deported. This is
your hobby horse. You ride it.
>>Why do you hate America?
>>
>>>>>> Why would you want to change these foundations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Illegal immigration is not a part of any foundation.
>>>>
>>>>But our laws are. Try to stay focused.
>>>
>>> I am. Illegals are breaking our laws simply by their presence. End
>>> this lawbreaking by ending their presence.
>>
>>Your fear is so overwhelming that all you can see is illegals.
>
> No, but there are a lot of them. Identifying them is not my job -
> that is up to law enforcement.
Thanks for sharing another irrelevant comment.
>>Sometimes you see them when they're not there, like all those pregnant
>>Mexican women swimming the Rio Grande. But we're talking about how
>>this country deals with illegal immigrants under our laws. Which laws
>>you seem to hate. Why is that?
>
> I don't hate the laws. In fact I support better enforcement of them.
No, you don't. You want the Constitution changed. Own your position
and its consequences.
>>>>>>Asking whether you hate America is hyperbolic, but it's not a non
>>>>>>sequitur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't want reason to enter into this, would we?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reason requires immediate deportation and nothing else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By definition all absolute rules surrender reason to the
>>>>>>>>arbitrary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You definition perhaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This isn't a matter of my private definition. An absolute rule
>>>>>>precludes discretion. Any reasoning about exceptions is
>>>>>>prohibited.
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be no exceptions to deportation.
>>>>
>>>>Not even for people who are wrongly identified as illegal aliens?
>>>
>>> Of course they do not fit the requirement. But all of those who are
>>> illegal aliens should be deported without regard or consideration
>>> for any other factor.
>>
>>You would cede to the executive the power to deport upon
>>identification.
>
> That should be within the power of ICE.
Not in a free country. If you aren't comfortable with freedom, perhaps
you'd be better off elsewhere. Just a suggestion.
>>No appeals; no review. Someone wrongly identified would have no
>>opportunity to challenge the error. This is basically unamerican.
>
> Which shows the necessity of an accurate and foolproof system of
> identification.
There's no such thing, and if there were, no patriotic American would
trust only the executive with it.
But you would. Why is that?
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>It's no start at all. Do you understand so little about our system
>>>>that you don't even know how the Constitution is amended?
>>>
>>> Since it has been done several times in my lifetime I am well aware
>>> of the process. The first step is to have a majority desire the
>>> amendment, and this law would call attention to the situation.
>>
>>Frightened people like you have been screaming about this for a while
>>now.
>
> I am not frightened,
You sure seem frightened. But perhaps you're just ignorant.
> and I have been pointing out the problems for many years.
What difference does it make how long you've been frightened?
>>You think this hypocritical attempt to con the scared and the gullible
>>is worthwhile? Imagine my surprise.
>
> I thong the efforts and successes made in deporting illegals and
> preventing their return is worthwhile.
>
>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>What was so hard about that? You do want to change citizenship from
>>>>a right acquired by birth to a right acquired by blood. I'm glad
>>>>you're finally owning your position.
>>>
>>> Your implication goes far beyond that simple statement.
>>
>>Learn the difference between my implication and your inference.
>
> I am well aware of the difference,
So you claim.
> as well as your propaganda efforts.
Pointing out your ignorance and unamerican views is not propaganda. You
back up my points every time you post.
>>> You do not
>>> desire to publicize the fact that the parents could legally become
>>> citizens without being so born.
>>
>>Of course, but that doesn't change the fact the citizenship will
>>become inherited.
>
> So what? It is that way in most countries now.
Sure, let's abandon what makes America special and just do what "most
countries" do. Is Iran a good model for you?
Why do you hate America?
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>>OK? OK, so you mean you just made this up.
>>>
>>> No, it appears to be common enough to have a name for it.
>>
>>Lots of things that don't exist have names. Extraterrestrial aliens
>>who visit earth. Spontaneous human combustion. Racial superiority.
>>Compassionate conservatism.
>
> I see you trimmed the subject, so I have no idea what you are talking
> about.
Sorry, the antecedent is "anchor babies." You think there are lots of
them because there's a name for them. I just pointed out the fallacy of
that argument. If you claim there are lots of anchor babies, you need
evidence for that number. A name does not evidence make.
Clear?
>>
>>> That OK was
>>> simply a recognition of your 'not buying' the fact you just
>>> demonstrated.
>>
>>I'm not buying something you just made up. Your claim; your burden of
>>proof.
>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>So you want to ignore our history and the Constitution that arose
>>>>from that history.
>>>
>>> History is history, and does not always fit current conditions. I
>>> would alter the Constitution, not ignore it.
>>
>>Sure you would. Your fear is that great.
>
> The only thing great is your propaganda efforts. I have mentioned
> several times no fear is involved yet you ignore my statement.
I'm not ignoring it. I just don't believe it. What else would drive
your self-professed outrage and unpatriotic attitude?
> Henceforth I shall simply ignore it the same way I ignore your 'hates
> America' rants.
It's a simple question that you can't seem to answer. So now you'll
just ignore it. Imagine my surprise.
>>>> Exactly what I'd expect from someone who hates America.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you can't, maybe you'd be happier in Germany, where blud
>>>>>>>>really counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet anyone can get that 'blood' you seem to be fixated upon by
>>>>>>> simply following a legal path to citizenship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Simply? Bwahahahahahaha!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, simply. Or not simply. It doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't? Then why did you say it?
>>>
>>> Because being illegal is not an acceptable alternative, so it is
>>> either do it the legal (simple or not simple) way or not at all.
>>
>>I don't object to finding a solution. I object to one that goes
>>counter to our values, that changes the Constitution out of fear, that
>>demonizes the most vulnerable people, and gives the executive even
>>more power.
>
> You object to my solution, deportation of illegals, so your answer
> must be to let them stay.
My objections are to the expansion of unchecked executive power and the
demonization of poor people. Try reading for comprehension.
<snip/>
>>You demonize vulnerable people, and you would trample our values to
>>deport them. That's what's more.
>
> On one made them come here.
Desperation drives most of them.
> Whether they are 'vulnerable' or not simply does not matter.
No one reading this thread could doubt that it doesn't matter to you.
> I would simply enforce the laws and deport them promptly upon
> identification.
Not the way we do things in this country and for good reason. Learn why
that is.
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>Aside from being important to the economy?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, even if true. Which I do not accept.
>>
>>Of course you don't. But that's because you're an ignoramus. Look up
>>what the SSA says about taxes it collects for benefits that it will
>>never have to pay out.
>
> And the amounts paid by state and local governments in medical support
> and food stamps.
And the contribution to agribusiness in the form of a low-wage work
force. These people aren't stealing from you.
> None of which matters. They are here illegally. Deport them.
Fine. Just don't trample the Constitution in your urge to get rid of
them.
<snip/>
>>This shows the depths of your ignorance. Read the Bill of Rights. It
>>talks about people or persons or the accused. In other words it is
>>not reserved for citizens.
>
> It should be.
The proudest tradition we have is that rights accrue to everyone by
virtue of their humanity and that government must protect those rights
for everyone. And you wonder why I ask why you hate America.
>
> The only right an illegal should have is to be promptly deported upon
> identification.
Answer the question.
<snip/>
>>You broadcast your fear and ignorance every time you post. "Our
>>values do not apply to illegals," you say, apparently unaware of how
>>and why we have the system we do.
>
> Amusing. Where have I said that?
Right up above where I say that the Bill of Rights isn't reserved for
citizens. "It should be," you reply in your ignorance.
> And what difference doe it make? Illegals should be deported upon
> identification. Nothing else matters and the promptness involved
> should make everything else moot.
>
>>
>>Why do you think I keep talking to you? Every time you post you show
>>yourself as ignorant and frightened. You undercut your cause every
>>time you open your mouth.
>>
>>Keep it up.
> I fully intend to do so.
Excellent.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:lg3t749iispl2e7mm...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:01:11 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@127.0.0.7> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <02hs74lpvkfcshle0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
<snip/>
>>The new Citizenship police where black trenchcoats? <"papers, show us
>>your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police coming
>>to a check point near you, soon!
>>
>
> No, just a national ID card and biometric database what would be able
> to positively identify any person.
Your dedication to state control is admirable, Comrade, and will be
reported with favor to the Central Committee.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:pq3t74l0u8mc07doh...@4ax.com:
> I have no problem with legal immigration, no matter where the
> immigrants come from. I have problems with some of the laws that
> allow certain groups, such as the way the Nazis were allowed in after
> the war because of the Red Menace but those are separate issues.
>
> If someone is here illegally they should be deported. No fear is
> involved - simply annoyance
Ah, it's down from outrage to annoyance now. Perhaps annoyance isn't
enough to change the Constitution, eh?
> at those who would sneak in like a thief in the night.
Yeah, they sneak in here so they can pick your lettuce. Why don't we
just shoot them on sight? It'll save the cost of deportation.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:924t74l4h3aa7c90l...@4ax.com:
> On 16 Jul 2008 13:06:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <487df25a$0$17162$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>
>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>
>>>>Outraged? Why?
>>>
>>>That these illegals can even get in.
>>
>>That is irrational. Are you outraged that people can drive 68mph
>>on the freeway? Are you outraged that people jaywalk?
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>
>>>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>>>do so.
>>
>>I see nobody bragging.
>
> They are doing so by simply remaining.
Are you delusional?
>> Again, you are irrational and when people
>>become irrational and angry it's usually because they are frightened.
>
> And so the Drama Queen spouts once again.
You're the drama queen here, bunkie, with all your faux outrage at people
you don't know.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:q54t74dnuouvpj05c...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:56:46 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <O_nfk.29709$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:pjer749v5v4t3brcq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 16 Jul 2008 03:03:27 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <487d64ff$0$17146$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>
>>>>Outraged? Why?
>>>
>>> That these illegals can even get in.
>>
>>That's *what* you claim to be outraged about. We get that. Now *why*
>>are you outraged?
>
> Why not?
Who can argue with logic like that? For most people, an extreme emotion
like outrage has a cause. Apparently not for you, though.
>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>
>>> I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>>> do so.
>>
>>Brag about it? You don't know any illegals.
>
> True -
But you can hear them bragging. Go figure.
> if I did I would report them.
Your dedication to informing for the state is noted, Comrade, and will be
reported with favor to the Central Committee with a suggestion that you
be awarded the Order of the Weasel, third class with oak leaves.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:594t74hd5ioaejt3m...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:07:54 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <e9ofk.29711$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
<snip/>
>>>>>>>>> I would not know since I am not anti-immigration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am anti-illegal immigration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you cannot see the difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>
>>>>Outraged? By what? People without visas picking lettuce?
>>>
>>> People in the country illegally. Why, what they are doing, who they
>>> are - none of that matters.
>>
>>Nice dodge. Now answer the question. *Why* are you outraged about
>>this and not say, the Worst President of All Time politicizing the
>>Justice Department.
>
> I can't work against everything I don't like.
Yet you picked this one to be outraged about. At random?
> The particular issue if illegal immigration outrages my sense of fair
> play and I consider it an insult to every person who followed the
> rules and entered the country legally. And every one of their
> descendents.
Ah, taint of blood. Let's amend the Constitution for that while we're at
it.
<snip/>
>>>>> You are the one who brought politics into this. As far as I am
>>>>> concerned it is a very simple issue with a very simple and
>>>>> uncomplicated answer.
>>>>
>>>>As H. L. Mencken said, "For every problem, there is a solution that
>>>>is simple, neat, and wrong."
>>>
>>> Cute, but irrelevant. Deportation is not wrong.
>>
>>Who says it is? Your way of going about it is unamerican though.
>
> Is there some way to do it?
Some other way? I don't know. It's hard to fight the hand of the
market, but it's not my hobby horse, so I'm not inclined to ride it.
>>What's the problem here? Why can you not stay focused on the issues?
>
> I do. The only issue is identifying and deporting illegals.
No, the issue is your willingness to change the Constitution and hand
unchecked power to the executive.
<snip/>
>>>>> I see you have exhausted your facts and now are attempting
>>>>> ridicule. Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>You don't understand the law; you don't understand the Constitution;
>>>>you don't understand our political history; you make up your
>>>>"facts."
>>>
>>> I understand the Constitution (which is why I want it changed),
>>
>>If you understood this part of the Constitution, then you would
>>understand its importance. But you don't.
>
> No one part is more important than any other part.
>
> And all parts are subject to change.
Thanks for sharing another irrelevant comment. The topic is your failure
to understand why the Constitution is the way it is.
>>> political history is irrelevant,
>>
>>Does it hurt to be that ignorant? Just wondering.
>
> Political history has nothing to do with deporting illegals.
It does the way you want to go about it. Still wondering.
>>> and the facts are easily found in just about any public venue.
>>
>>But you can't seem to find them. Go figure.
>>
>>> Illegals are here.
>>> They are illegal.
>>> They are being deported.
>>> They should be deported faster, and there should be more of those
>>> deportations.
>>
>>Some of this is fact; some of this is arguable opinion. None of it has
>>anything to do with this discussion, namely your unreasoned fear of
>>illegals and your willingness to subvert the Constitution.
>
> No, that seems to be what you are discussing. I am not.
You may think you're not. But you're an ignoramus.
>>>>Now *that's* pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>And you don't think you're worthy of ridicule?
>>>><snip/>
>>>
>>> Anything to deflect my suggestions.
>>
>>Your suggestions are odious to patriotic Americans and moral human
>>beings, and every time you post one of your ignorant screeds, you
>>demonstrate your fear, your weakness, and how much you hate America.
>>
>>Keep it up.
> I intend to do so. In my signature every time I post.
Excellent.
<snip/>
Ray Fischer
> Bob Officer
>>I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who are
>>willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
>>(on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
>>like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>
>Like is irrelevant. Those here illegally should be promptly deported,
And STILL we have not seen a good reason. All you can do is insist
that people should suffer because of what you say.
That is not rational.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>
>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure seem
>>>>>>frightened.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>
>>>>Outraged? Why?
>>>
>>>That these illegals can even get in.
>>
>>That is irrational. Are you outraged that people can drive 68mph
>>on the freeway? Are you outraged that people jaywalk?
>
And yet jaywalking is an actual crime while being in the US "illegaly"
is only a civil matter.
>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>
>>>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>>>do so.
>>
>>I see nobody bragging.
>
>They are doing so by simply remaining.
You _are_ nuts . You imagine things that do not exist.
>> Again, you are irrational and when people
>>become irrational and angry it's usually because they are frightened.
>
>And so the Drama Queen spouts once again.
Then stop spouting off, drama queen. Stop all the melodrama about
"illegal immigration" and start acting sane.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>play
I have not noticed in you ANY concern for fair play at all.
Come up with some other excuse.
>and I consider it an insult to every person who followed the
>rules and entered the country legally.
Are you an immigrant? If not then you're realy just imagining things
again.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Reality_CheckŠ
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:487eb5ff$0$17213$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Nor is it moral or ethical.
Typical for bottom-feeding lowlife Repugnikkkan scumbags.
Ray Fischer
> Attila
>>No, just a national ID card and biometric database what would be able
>>to positively identify any person.
>
>You need to get a better understanding of what DNA testing can and
>can not do, the costs and time required.
You know the big-government control freaks. They're ever eager to
spend hundreds of billions of dollars of other people's money in order
to have their immoral dictates forced upon other people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Reality_CheckŠ
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:cn1u7495tkebte34u...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:31:45 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
^^^^^^^^^
Whoooooooooop! There it is!
Deadrat
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:07:48 GMT, in alt.abortion, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote in
>>news:02hs74lpvkfcshle0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT, in alt.abortion, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
>><snip/>
>>
>>> I am surprised at the number of people that demand removal of
>>> unlawful immigrants, when they are all basically all defendants of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Interesting slip.
>
> it was... and unintentional.
>
>>> unwanted immigrants themselves.
>>
>>The situations aren't parallel, in that the previous waves of
>>immigrants were legal, welcomed for the purpose of driving the US
>>industrial machine.
>
> Where the initial wave of european settlers which entered often
> without permission of the land holders (Native Americans), or the
> subsequent waves which were used to displace native from their lands
> really lawful and wanted immigrants?
The first European settlers weren't immigrants in the sense we use today.
You may call them conquerors if you wish. They didn't enter modern
nation-states with well-defined borders and regulations for
naturalization. They took over land in the name of their countries of
origin and considered themselves still citizens of those countries. The
better parallel are the immigrants who arrived from roughly 1850-1925.
>>But they were demonized in the same way by xenophobes -- for their
>>foreign nature, supposed lack of loyalty, for their absence of
>>hygiene, for their inability to speak English, and so on. The Mexican
>>immigrants of today remind me of the Chinese before 1882, when they
>>were excluded. Today it's stoop agri-labor; then it was railroads.
>
> I speaking of the immigration which took place from 1492 onward. Not
> on of the europeans asked permission to immigrate to the "new world".
> In Fact most european religions took the stance that the Native
> American's were not Human and had no rights.
It is hard to understand people of different times if you judge them by
today's standards. Did Europeans consider Native Americans unhuman? The
Spanish, for instance, refused to kill Aztecs unless they were first
offered the chance to convert to Christianity. It seems absurd to us
that the offers were made in Spanish and thus unintelligible to those to
whom the offer was made, but nevertheless.
>
>>> I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who are
>>> willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
>>> (on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
>>> like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>>>
>>> The new Citizenship police wear black trenchcoats? <"papers, show us
>>> your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police coming
>>> to a check point near you, soon!
>>
>>Fear does that to people.
>
> Roosevelt said something about that, didn't he?
He claimed the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Today we have
bone-deep ignorance as well.
Deadrat
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:15:44 -0400, in alt.abortion, Attila
> <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:01:11 -0700, Bob Officer
>><bobof...@127.0.0.7> in alt.abortion with message-id
>><02hs74lpvkfcshle0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I am surprised at the number of people that demand removal of
>>>unlawful immigrants, when they are all basically all defendants of
>>>unwanted immigrants themselves.
>>
>>Now that is truly amazing!
>>
>>Exactly what is your basis for changing 'unlawful immigrants' to
>>'unwanted immigrants'?
>>
>>>
>>>I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who are
>>>willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
>>>(on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
>>>like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>>
>>Like is irrelevant. Those here illegally should be promptly deported,
>>and citizenship status check should be a part of every governmental
>>involvement the same way a drivers license is part of every such
>>encounter involving driving.
>>
>>>
>>>The new Citizenship police where black trenchcoats? <"papers, show us
>>>your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police coming
>>>to a check point near you, soon!
>>>
>>
>>No, just a national ID card and biometric database what would be able
>>to positively identify any person.
>
> You need to get a better understanding of what DNA testing can and
> can not do, the costs and time required.
I don't think he means DNA testing, but rather facial-recognition
software based on the unique measurements each of us has of the
configuration of our features, such as distance between the eyes.
Still the essence of Big Brother, though.
>
>
Deadrat
news:ig1u74tokn0dogiuv...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:44:49 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <5Cwfk.29799$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
<snip/>
>>> at those who would sneak in like a thief in the night.
>>
>>Yeah, they sneak in here so they can pick your lettuce. Why don't we
>>just shoot them on sight? It'll save the cost of deportation.
>>
>
> No, that is reserved for those who attempt to enter illegally.
Are you claiming that it is legal to shoot someone caught crossing the
border illegally?
Maybe you'd be happier in East Germany.
Too bad.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:mk1u74hvtijk6qpil...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Jul 2008 03:01:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> There is an excellent reason. They are here illegally. What more is
> needed?
>
> I really don't understand why this is an issue.
That's because you're an ignoramus.
Fix that.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:ep2u74p5kd60rje6j...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:46:29 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <FDwfk.29800$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:924t74l4h3aa7c90l...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 16 Jul 2008 13:06:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <487df25a$0$17162$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Outraged? Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>That these illegals can even get in.
>>>>
>>>>That is irrational. Are you outraged that people can drive 68mph
>>>>on the freeway? Are you outraged that people jaywalk?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing
>>>>>to do so.
>>>>
>>>>I see nobody bragging.
>>>
>>> They are doing so by simply remaining.
>>
>>Are you delusional?
>
> I leave that to you.
I'm not a doctor, but you seem to be hearing things.
>>>> Again, you are irrational and when people
>>>>become irrational and angry it's usually because they are
>>>>frightened.
>>>
>>> And so the Drama Queen spouts once again.
>>
>>You're the drama queen here, bunkie, with all your faux outrage at
>>people you don't know.
>>
> I am not your bunkie.
Even if I hadn't meant that ironically, bunkies (or bunkmates) don't
share the same bed. A little overdetermined, no?
> (Shutter)
Mmm. I expect you meant to say "(Shudder)"; is English really your first
language?
> I don't swing that way.
What an odd thing to interject!
What way would that be? How do you know that I'm not physically
suitable. For example, if you're a heterosexual male, how do you know
I'm not a heterosexual female?
You really are insecure, aren't you?
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:dv2u741t1j9hd23e6...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:33 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <pIwfk.29801$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:q54t74dnuouvpj05c...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:56:46 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <O_nfk.29709$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:pjer749v5v4t3brcq...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Jul 2008 03:03:27 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> <487d64ff$0$17146$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Outraged? Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> That these illegals can even get in.
>>>>
>>>>That's *what* you claim to be outraged about. We get that. Now
>>>>*why* are you outraged?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>>Who can argue with logic like that? For most people, an extreme
>>emotion like outrage has a cause. Apparently not for you, though.
>
> No extreme emotion is involved.
Outrage is extreme in my book. YMMV.
> I dislike illegals being here, they
> are in violation of the law, and I am simply pointing out they should
> be deported upon identification as provided for by those laws.
No, you're not. You have to identify them as criminals; you want to
change the Constitution; you hear "them" bragging even when you don't
know any (or know that you know any); you'd deprive them of their rights;
you'd cede more power to the state.
> The only emotion is disgust for those who oppose these laws and for
> some unknown reason try to prevent them from being enforced.
So now it's disgust. Why do desperate people disgust you?
And who's trying to prevent the laws from being enforced? Not me.
>>>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing
>>>>> to do so.
>>>>
>>>>Brag about it? You don't know any illegals.
>>>
>>> True -
>>
>>But you can hear them bragging. Go figure.
>
> Where did I say that?
Let me quote you:
<quote>
I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to do
so.
</quote>
>>> if I did I would report them.
>>
>>Your dedication to informing for the state is noted, Comrade, and will
>>be reported with favor to the Central Committee with a suggestion that
>>you be awarded the Order of the Weasel, third class with oak leaves.
>>
>
> No reward is necessary for performing my civic duty.
Well played, Comrade, but, I insist. Order of the Weasel, *second*
class.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:l63u741qipd7v0vue...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:01:11 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <rRwfk.29802$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:594t74hd5ioaejt3m...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:07:54 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <e9ofk.29711$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would not know since I am not anti-immigration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am anti-illegal immigration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you cannot see the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><snip/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Look, I understand that you're frightened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you
>>>>>>>>sure seem frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Outraged? By what? People without visas picking lettuce?
>>>>>
>>>>> People in the country illegally. Why, what they are doing, who
>>>>> they are - none of that matters.
>>>>
>>>>Nice dodge. Now answer the question. *Why* are you outraged about
>>>>this and not say, the Worst President of All Time politicizing the
>>>>Justice Department.
>>>
>>> I can't work against everything I don't like.
>>
>>Yet you picked this one to be outraged about. At random?
>
> It caught my attention and went from there.
So at random. "It went from there." You really got a handle on your
reasoning, don't you?
> Especially since it
> includes a lot of smuggling, especially of drugs,
Drug mules do not become illegal immigrants. The whole point is for them
to go back and forth across the border.
> and a lot of other illegal activity.
Cite?
>>> The particular issue if illegal immigration outrages my sense of
>>> fair play and I consider it an insult to every person who followed
>>> the rules and entered the country legally. And every one of their
>>> descendents.
>>
>>Ah, taint of blood. Let's amend the Constitution for that while we're
>>at it.
>
> I have suggested doing so to require one parent be a current citizen
> and end automatic citizenship based only on birth location.
You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you?
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>>>> You are the one who brought politics into this. As far as I am
>>>>>>> concerned it is a very simple issue with a very simple and
>>>>>>> uncomplicated answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As H. L. Mencken said, "For every problem, there is a solution
>>>>>>that is simple, neat, and wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>> Cute, but irrelevant. Deportation is not wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Who says it is? Your way of going about it is unamerican though.
>>>
>>> Is there some way to do it?
>>
>>Some other way? I don't know. It's hard to fight the hand of the
>>market, but it's not my hobby horse, so I'm not inclined to ride it.
>
> Then why make a comment about 'my way'?
Because any informed, patriotic American understands the dangers inherent
in "your way."
>>>>What's the problem here? Why can you not stay focused on the
>>>>issues?
>>>
>>> I do. The only issue is identifying and deporting illegals.
>>
>>No, the issue is your willingness to change the Constitution and hand
>>unchecked power to the executive.
>
> The first step is to secure the borders and deport the current
> illegals.
OK.
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>>>> I see you have exhausted your facts and now are attempting
>>>>>>> ridicule. Pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't understand the law; you don't understand the
>>>>>>Constitution; you don't understand our political history; you make
>>>>>>up your "facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand the Constitution (which is why I want it changed),
>>>>
>>>>If you understood this part of the Constitution, then you would
>>>>understand its importance. But you don't.
>>>
>>> No one part is more important than any other part.
>>>
>>> And all parts are subject to change.
>>
>>Thanks for sharing another irrelevant comment. The topic is your
>>failure to understand why the Constitution is the way it is.
>
> It's the way it is because that is how it was written and amended.
So it's written the way it is because it's written the way it was.
Please get a clue.
>>>>> political history is irrelevant,
>>>>
>>>>Does it hurt to be that ignorant? Just wondering.
>>>
>>> Political history has nothing to do with deporting illegals.
>>
>>It does the way you want to go about it. Still wondering.
>
> I disagree, but it really doesn't matter.
*Still* wondering.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:cg3u74toqsucpvk8a...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Jul 2008 03:05:22 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> Fair play is to deport illegals upon identification. What else is
> needed?
Let's start with due process.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:tt1u749o0eu42r75c...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:40:41 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <dywfk.29797$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:lb2t74t6esop0og17...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <UYnfk.29708$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:09:56 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in
>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> <Uggfk.18089$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>><snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's your problem, not mine.
>>>>
>>>>Well, possibly. If there are enough ignoramuses around like you,
>>>>then the center cannot hold. Which is why I consider it a public
>>>>service to demonstrate your ignorance and your callousness and your
>>>>hatred for America.
>>>
>>> Demonstrate away.
>>
>>That's what this thread has been about. Thanks for your help.
>
> This thread is about deporting illegals. I am not concerned with your
> discussions on other topics.
No other topic; just your ignorance about illegal immigration.
<snip/>
>>>><shrug>
>>>>If you really believed that, then you wouldn't use the language you
>>>>do. </shrug>
>>>
>>> Sorry. I only speak English. By choice.
>>
>>And not that well. You mean, "I speak only English."
>>
>>And you've missed the point (again). "Language" here means your
>>choice of words, not whether you speak English or Swahili.
>
> It appears you prefer word games to factual comments.
<shrug>
You misunderstood me. Do you get it now?
</shrug>
>>>>>>>>>>So why do you hate America? For our freedoms? Or what?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Non Sequitur
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Learn what a non sequitur is. Your objections are to things
>>>>>>>>that are basic to our system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illegal aliens are not basic to any system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But our treatment of them under our laws is. Try to stay focused.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only treatment they should receive is deportation. Prompt and
>>>>> unavoidable deportation.
>>>>
>>>>Your disregard for our legal system and legal traditions is clear.
>>>
>>> Such prompt deportation is well within our legal system. Why should
>>> they not be deported?
>>
>>No one says that people here illegally shouldn't be deported. This is
>>your hobby horse. You ride it.
>
> I do.
That's because you're an ignoramus. I can't force you to fix that, but
don't expect me to adopt your silly views.
> You certainly have a strange way of agreeing with me.
That it's legal to deport illegals? Why is that strange?
It's your methods that I object to.
>>>>Why do you hate America?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you want to change these foundations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illegal immigration is not a part of any foundation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But our laws are. Try to stay focused.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am. Illegals are breaking our laws simply by their presence.
>>>>> End this lawbreaking by ending their presence.
>>>>
>>>>Your fear is so overwhelming that all you can see is illegals.
>>>
>>> No, but there are a lot of them. Identifying them is not my job -
>>> that is up to law enforcement.
>>
>>Thanks for sharing another irrelevant comment.
>
> OK. You got me. I actually commented on one of your little digs.
> Sorry about that.
I'm sorry. Was it supposed to be a joke?
>>>>Sometimes you see them when they're not there, like all those
>>>>pregnant Mexican women swimming the Rio Grande. But we're talking
>>>>about how this country deals with illegal immigrants under our laws.
>>>> Which laws you seem to hate. Why is that?
>>>
>>> I don't hate the laws. In fact I support better enforcement of
>>> them.
>>
>>No, you don't. You want the Constitution changed. Own your position
>>and its consequences.
>
> I support the enforcement of current law.
OK.
> I also support a Constitutional change.
>
> So what?
So you're an ignoramus, that's what. You'd mark up the Constitution
because you're afraid of illegal aliens.
<snip/>
>>>>You would cede to the executive the power to deport upon
>>>>identification.
>>>
>>> That should be within the power of ICE.
>>
>>Not in a free country. If you aren't comfortable with freedom,
>>perhaps you'd be better off elsewhere. Just a suggestion.
>
> No, I intend to stay here and continue supporting the current legal
> system.
You intend nothing of the sort. You intend changing the current legal
system to allay your fears. I'm not telling you to leave -- I have no
authority to make you -- but I am suggesting that you'd feel safer in a
more totalitarian system, where there are no strangers because the only
citizens are children of citizens and where the state can demand your
papers at any time.
>>>>No appeals; no review. Someone wrongly identified would have no
>>>>opportunity to challenge the error. This is basically unamerican.
>>>
>>> Which shows the necessity of an accurate and foolproof system of
>>> identification.
>>
>>There's no such thing,
>
> Not yet, but there are a lot of databases now and it is only a matter
> of time.
No, it's not. We'll add database operations to the list of things about
which you're ignorant.
>> and if there were, no patriotic American would
>>trust only the executive with it.
>
> Irrelevant. Circumstances will force it into existence for many
> reasons.
"Circumstances" is always the excuse of the timid when they wish to trade
their liberty for safety. And as Ben Franklin pointed out, they deserve
neither.
>>But you would. Why is that?
>
> I see the need.
And yet you can't articulate that need and the reasoning behind it. We
have just your outrage.
Go figure.
<snip/>
>>>>Lots of things that don't exist have names. Extraterrestrial aliens
>>>>who visit earth. Spontaneous human combustion. Racial superiority.
>>>> Compassionate conservatism.
>>>
>>> I see you trimmed the subject, so I have no idea what you are
>>> talking about.
>>
>>Sorry, the antecedent is "anchor babies." You think there are lots of
>>them because there's a name for them. I just pointed out the fallacy
>>of that argument. If you claim there are lots of anchor babies, you
>>need evidence for that number. A name does not evidence make.
>>
>>Clear?
>
> Do you contend there are very few of them?
Anchor babies? No, it's your claim that there are many of them. So it's
your burden to provide the evidence.
> When there are enough to
> make them a problem for a lot of border communities?
Anchor babies? Really?
> One is too many.
Because?
<snip/>
>>>>You demonize vulnerable people, and you would trample our values to
>>>>deport them. That's what's more.
>>>
>>> On one made them come here.
>>
>>Desperation drives most of them.
>
> Irrelevant. That is no reason to allow them to either enter or stay.
This simply shows more of your ignorance. Desperate people do desperate
things, and when the markets (in this case the labor markets) give them
an incentive, it's very difficult to stop them. Unless you understand
the realities behind illegal immigration, you'll never find a workable
solution. And you don't understand.
>>> Whether they are 'vulnerable' or not simply does not matter.
>>
>>No one reading this thread could doubt that it doesn't matter to you.
>
> At least you understand one thing. I was doubting even that.
Of course you were, but you're an ignoramus.
>>> I would simply enforce the laws and deport them promptly upon
>>> identification.
>>
>>Not the way we do things in this country and for good reason. Learn
>>why that is.
>
> I disagree.
You disagree about the way we do things in this country. No surprise
there: you're ignorant of our political history and our system.
You disagree that you should learn about these things. No surprise there
either.
> We are a country of laws and those laws should be enforced.
OK.
>>>><snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>>Aside from being important to the economy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant, even if true. Which I do not accept.
>>>>
>>>>Of course you don't. But that's because you're an ignoramus. Look
>>>>up what the SSA says about taxes it collects for benefits that it
>>>>will never have to pay out.
>>>
>>> And the amounts paid by state and local governments in medical
>>> support and food stamps.
>>
>>And the contribution to agribusiness in the form of a low-wage work
>>force. These people aren't stealing from you.
>
> The entire subject is irrelevant.
>
> They are illegal. Do you understand nothing else matters?
Of course I don't "understand" that. Only a fearful ignoramus would
"understand" that.
>>> None of which matters. They are here illegally. Deport them.
>>
>>Fine. Just don't trample the Constitution in your urge to get rid of
>>them.
>
> The necessary laws now exist.
How's that workin'? And if that's true, then why do you insist on
changing the Constitution?
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>This shows the depths of your ignorance. Read the Bill of Rights.
>>>>It talks about people or persons or the accused. In other words it
>>>>is not reserved for citizens.
>>>
>>> It should be.
>>
>>The proudest tradition we have is that rights accrue to everyone by
>>virtue of their humanity and that government must protect those rights
>>for everyone. And you wonder why I ask why you hate America.
>>>
>>> The only right an illegal should have is to be promptly deported
>>> upon identification.
>>
>>Answer the question.
>
> I have answered all the questions I intend to answer.
And probably all you're able to.
> Have you stopped kicking dogs?
Never started, and there's no evidence that I ever did.
Your turn.
>><snip/>
>>
>>>>You broadcast your fear and ignorance every time you post. "Our
>>>>values do not apply to illegals," you say, apparently unaware of how
>>>>and why we have the system we do.
>>>
>>> Amusing. Where have I said that?
>>
>>Right up above where I say that the Bill of Rights isn't reserved for
>>citizens. "It should be," you reply in your ignorance.
>
> Yes, I did.say "It should be". But that is a lot different from "It
> is." But your propaganda demands you twist statements doesn't it?
Don't disown your words if you still mean them. You state clearly, "Our
values do not apply to illegals," But they do. You retreat to "well,
they shouldn't." But no informed, patriotic American would contend that.
<snip/>
Deadrat
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:45:49 GMT, in alt.abortion, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> All that matters they were generally unwanted by the people already
> living here. In many cases they were removed by force.
>
>>>>But they were demonized in the same way by xenophobes -- for their
>>>>foreign nature, supposed lack of loyalty, for their absence of
>>>>hygiene, for their inability to speak English, and so on. The
>>>>Mexican immigrants of today remind me of the Chinese before 1882,
>>>>when they were excluded. Today it's stoop agri-labor; then it was
>>>>railroads.
>>>
>>> I speaking of the immigration which took place from 1492 onward. Not
>>> on of the europeans asked permission to immigrate to the "new
>>> world". In Fact most european religions took the stance that the
>>> Native American's were not Human and had no rights.
>>
>>It is hard to understand people of different times if you judge them
>>by today's standards. Did Europeans consider Native Americans
>>unhuman?
>
> Yes according to a one Pope and his rulings.
>
>>The
>>Spanish, for instance, refused to kill Aztecs unless they were first
>>offered the chance to convert to Christianity.
>
> I need an actual cite for that.
I can't fault you for asking, and I don't have one. My roommate in
college did his senior thesis on the Conquistadores in Mexico, and he
told me that the Spanish policy was to send a priest ahead of the
assembled Spanish forces and exhort the Aztecs to convert to
Christianity. Of course the Aztecs couldn't understand the priest -- I
forget whether the exhortation was in Latin or Spanish, but it doesn't
matter -- but they soon figured out that an attack would follow after the
priest retired. So they started killing the exhorter before he could
finish speaking. Naturally, the Spanish soon had a shortage of priests
willing to go to the front and ask the the heathens to convert, so they
resorted to letting the priests give the exhortation from the rear.
Where the Aztecs couldn't even hear what they wouldn't understand. But
once the priest was finished, the attack could begin.
My provenance is weak, but my Spanish is weaker. Sorry.
>>It seems absurd to us
>>that the offers were made in Spanish and thus unintelligible to those
>>to whom the offer was made, but nevertheless.
>
> or could have been whispered or just thought...
>
>>>>> I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who
>>>>> are willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at
>>>>> random (on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if
>>>>> they don't like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp
>>>>> for disposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new Citizenship police wear black trenchcoats? <"papers, show
>>>>> us your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police
>>>>> coming to a check point near you, soon!
>>>>
>>>>Fear does that to people.
>>>
>>> Roosevelt said something about that, didn't he?
>>
>>He claimed the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Today we
>>have bone-deep ignorance as well.
>
> that is something worth being afraid.
>
Deadrat
> Still a monitoring system which can be abused.
>
> Throughout history governments have always risen to the greatest
> abuse of the most simple of powers.
Exactly. And exactly why the founders sought to distribute the powers
among competing branches and levels of government. They had their own
George to contend with. But folks like "Attila" can't wait to hand the
state a bigger stick with which to beat their enemies. The same stick
they themselves will get beaten with. I can endure that irony, but it's
also the same stick that will be used on me.
Ray Fischer
> "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> And STILL we have not seen a good reason. All you can do is insist
>>> that people should suffer because of what you say.
>>>
>>> That is not rational.
>>
>>Nor is it moral or ethical.
>
>Irrelevant.
And that says everything that we need to know about you.
You're an amoral sociopath.
> The discussion is about something that is illegal.
Laws exist to serve people. People are not slaves to laws.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who are
>>>>willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
>>>>(on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
>>>>like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>>>
>>>Like is irrelevant. Those here illegally should be promptly deported,
>>
>>And STILL we have not seen a good reason. All you can do is insist
>>that people should suffer because of what you say.
>
>There is an excellent reason. They are here illegally.
Jaywalking is illegal but there are good reasons that it's not a
capital offense.
You don't have a good reason for your brutal agenda. Making people be
slaves to the laws isn't good enough.
>I really don't understand why this is an issue.
That's because you're a sociopath who doesn't understand why other
people aren't as callous and brutal as are you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>> with message-id <UYnfk.29708$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:09:56 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in
>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>>>> <Uggfk.18089$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's your problem, not mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, possibly. If there are enough ignoramuses around like you,
>>>>>>then the center cannot hold. Which is why I consider it a public
>>>>>>service to demonstrate your ignorance and your callousness and your
>>>>>>hatred for America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Demonstrate away.
>>>>
>>>>That's what this thread has been about. Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> This thread is about deporting illegals. I am not concerned with your
>>> discussions on other topics.
>>
>>No other topic; just your ignorance about illegal immigration.
>
That is a stupid statement. Jaywalking is also illegal. Should
jaywalkers be deported? Or executed?
And since you have stated that you do NOT want the laws changed, you
obviously have some other agenda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 17 Jul 2008 03:03:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>alt.abortion with message-id
><487eb677$0$17213$742e...@news.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Obviously I can't know your inner thoughts from a post, but you sure seem
>>>>>>>>frightened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are entirely wrong. I am outraged, not frightened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That these illegals can even get in.
>>>>
>>>>on the freeway? Are you outraged that people jaywalk?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>is only a civil matter.
>
>Odd. I thought there were federal laws involved, and ICE can deport
>upon identification.
Not all laws are about crimes.
You're quite ignorant for somebody who seems to believe he knows
everything.
>>>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>>>>>do so.
>>>>
>>>>I see nobody bragging.
>>>
>>>They are doing so by simply remaining.
>>
>>You _are_ nuts . You imagine things that do not exist.
>>
>>>> Again, you are irrational and when people
>>>>become irrational and angry it's usually because they are frightened.
>>>
>>>And so the Drama Queen spouts once again.
>>
>>Then stop spouting off, drama queen. Stop all the melodrama about
>>"illegal immigration" and start acting sane.
>
>No melodrama is necessary.
And yet here you are, having fits about minor violations, even to the
point of demanding the suffering of millions of people.
>They exist. They should not.
Quite the nazi, aren't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) in
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>The particular issue if illegal immigration outrages my sense of fair
>>>play
>>
>>I have not noticed in you ANY concern for fair play at all.
>
>Fair play is to deport illegals upon identification.
"Fair play is to [exterminate jews] upon identification."
> What else is
>needed?
Justification.
>>>and I consider it an insult to every person who followed the
>>>rules and entered the country legally.
>>
>>Are you an immigrant? If not then you're realy just imagining things
>>again.
>
>No,
Then all your claims about how immigrants fell is BULLSHIT.
> but, like you, my ancestors were.
Wrong again, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>The particular issue if illegal immigration outrages my sense of fair
>>>>>play
>>>>
>>>>I have not noticed in you ANY concern for fair play at all.
>>>
>>> Fair play is to deport illegals upon identification. What else is
>>> needed?
>>
>>Let's start with due process.
>>
>><snip/>
>
>Let's start with deportation.
Fine. You first. Leave the country. Now. You are an illegal
immigrant. No, you don't get to deny it. You don't believe in due
process. You don't care about hardships. You don't believe in
justice. Leave. Now.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deadrat
news:goqv74pn4svpoadr7...@4ax.com:
> If they are entering illegally, yes.
Please back up this claim.
>>Maybe you'd be happier in East Germany.
> It no longer exists.
No kidding?
> I am happy here.
You say you're outraged or at least annoyed.
You don't sound happy.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:vsqv74926tkn7m355...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:13:49 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@127.0.0.7> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <8kdu74piioufotmbn...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:49:21 -0400, in alt.abortion, Attila
>><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:47:44 -0700, Bob Officer
>>><bobof...@127.0.0.7> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>><uk7t745drthee1jps...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:15:44 -0400, in alt.abortion, Attila
>>>><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:01:11 -0700, Bob Officer
>>>>><bobof...@127.0.0.7> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>><02hs74lpvkfcshle0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am surprised at the number of people that demand removal of
>>>>>>unlawful immigrants, when they are all basically all defendants of
>>>>>>unwanted immigrants themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that is truly amazing!
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly what is your basis for changing 'unlawful immigrants' to
>>>>>'unwanted immigrants'?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who
>>>>>>are willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at
>>>>>>random (on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if
>>>>>>they don't like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp
>>>>>>for disposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like is irrelevant. Those here illegally should be promptly
>>>>>deported, and citizenship status check should be a part of every
>>>>>governmental involvement the same way a drivers license is part of
>>>>>every such encounter involving driving.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The new Citizenship police where black trenchcoats? <"papers, show
>>>>>>us your papers"> the united nazi state of america citizen police
>>>>>>coming to a check point near you, soon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, just a national ID card and biometric database what would be
>>>>>able to positively identify any person.
>>>>
>>>>You need to get a better understanding of what DNA testing can and
>>>>can not do, the costs and time required.
>>>
>>>DNA is not the only biometric. There are fingerprints and retina
>>>scans, just to mention two.
>>>
>>>DNA testing is becoming more efficient and faster.
>>
>>None of the three are foolproof.
>
> But much better than nothing.
False dichotomy.
But thanks for playing.
> DNA identification is only a matter of time.
>
>>
>>No federal courts have agreed with the right of the government to
>>required people to carry citizenship papers and documents at all
>>times.
>
> Yet.
As I continue to point out, there are plenty of countries with regimes
that require you to identify yourself upon the demand of state
functionaries. Perhaps you'd be happier living in one of them.
>> There is a large probability such a law, if ever passed, would
>>be struck down as unconstitutional.
>
> Or not.
Why wait? Find a totalitarian country and move there.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:eerv74p804fjvrvr5...@4ax.com:
> Not really, since I am unfamiliar with that term.
You're unfamiliar with the term, but you assumed it had some sexual
connotation. Is that right?
>
>>
>>> (Shutter)
>>
>>Mmm. I expect you meant to say "(Shudder)"; is English really your
>>first language?
>
> Yes, but spell check gets me occasionally.
>
>>
>>> I don't swing that way.
>>
>>What an odd thing to interject!
>
> You mentioned 'bunkies'.
Which has nothing to do with how one "swings." Why would you assume
otherwise, especially since you say you're unfamiliar with the term?
>>What way would that be? How do you know that I'm not physically
>>suitable. For example, if you're a heterosexual male, how do you know
>>I'm not a heterosexual female?
>
> I still would not touch you.
Because you don't agree with about illegal immigration?
Thanks for the chuckle.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:tjrv749t3ab2rfj0j...@4ax.com:
> Should I care?
I don't know. If outrage and calm are the same to you, that's fine with
me.
>>> I dislike illegals being here, they
>>> are in violation of the law, and I am simply pointing out they
>>> should be deported upon identification as provided for by those
>>> laws.
>>
>>No, you're not. You have to identify them as criminals
>
> They are.
Maybe in the place you should live. Here everyone is innocent until
proven guilty.
>> ; you want to change the Constitution
>
> Yes
>
> ; you hear "them" bragging even when you don't
>>know any (or know that you know any); you'd deprive them of their
>>rights;
>
> As far as I am concerned they have none.
But you're an ignoramus.
>>you'd cede more power to the state.
>
> What they have is sufficient if it is properly used.
Then why give them more? Pick a hobby horse and ride it.
>>> The only emotion is disgust for those who oppose these laws and for
>>> some unknown reason try to prevent them from being enforced.
>>
>>So now it's disgust. Why do desperate people disgust you?
>
> They are illegal. What difference doe it make what else they are?
No difference unless you want to understand things.
Up to you, of course.
>>And who's trying to prevent the laws from being enforced? Not me.
>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you care in the slightest?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by
>>>>>>> continuing to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brag about it? You don't know any illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>> True -
>>>>
>>>>But you can hear them bragging. Go figure.
>>>
>>> Where did I say that?
>>
>>Let me quote you:
>>
>><quote>
>>I don't like those who break laws and brag about it by continuing to
>>do so.
>></quote>
>
> Nothing was said about hearing anything.
Then how do you know they're bragging? Sign language?
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:vprv74p4jmogkapui...@4ax.com:
> It works for me.
It keeps you ignorant. Is that working for you?
>>> Especially since it
>>> includes a lot of smuggling, especially of drugs,
>>
>>Drug mules do not become illegal immigrants. The whole point is for
>>them to go back and forth across the border.
>
> Which should not be survivable.
Why not?
>>> and a lot of other illegal activity.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> Look it up yourself.
Your claim; your burden.
>>>>> The particular issue if illegal immigration outrages my sense of
>>>>> fair play and I consider it an insult to every person who followed
>>>>> the rules and entered the country legally. And every one of their
>>>>> descendents.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, taint of blood. Let's amend the Constitution for that while
>>>>we're at it.
>>>
>>> I have suggested doing so to require one parent be a current citizen
>>> and end automatic citizenship based only on birth location.
>>
>>You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you?
>
> I really don't care what you are talking about. I know what I am
> talking about.
You do? Hard to tell from here.
<snip/>
>>> The first step is to secure the borders and deport the current
>>> illegals.
>>
>>OK.
>
> You seem to have a problem with that.
You seem to have a problem reading for comprehension.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:dvrv74he3ppg7g0v2...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:52 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <cBLfk.13398$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
<snip/>
>>> Fair play is to deport illegals upon identification. What else is
>>> needed?
>>
>>Let's start with due process.
>>
>><snip/>
>
> Let's start with deportation.
Then you should move some place that doesn't value the due process of
law.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:i1sv74196hpj2g1f9...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:49:50 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <6e9100F...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:cn1u7495tkebte34u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:31:45 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:487eb5ff$0$17213$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Officer
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am also surprised of the cluelessness of the these people, who
>>>>>>>are willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at
>>>>>>>random (on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if
>>>>>>>they don't like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp
>>>>>>>for disposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like is irrelevant. Those here illegally should be promptly
>>>>>>deported,
>>>>>
>>>>> And STILL we have not seen a good reason. All you can do is
>>>>> insist that people should suffer because of what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not rational.
>>>>
>>>>Nor is it moral or ethical.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Whoooooooooop! There it is!
>>
>>
> Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
> means "what I think that you should do".
Pretty much by defintion.
Deadrat
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>> "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> And STILL we have not seen a good reason. All you can do is insist
>>>> that people should suffer because of what you say.
>>>>
>>>> That is not rational.
>>>
>>>Nor is it moral or ethical.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>
> And that says everything that we need to know about you.
>
> You're an amoral sociopath.
That's a leap. Ignorance and fear explain everything without resorting to
diagnosis by post.
<snip/>
Reality_CheckŠ
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:OJPfk.15177$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
ROTFLMAO!
How useful...
> and he told me that the Spanish policy was to send a priest ahead of the
> assembled Spanish forces and exhort the Aztecs to convert to
> Christianity.
And part of that "conversion" entailed "donating" all their GOLD to
the Pope, eh?
> Of course the Aztecs couldn't understand the priest -- I
> forget whether the exhortation was in Latin or Spanish, but it doesn't
> matter -- but they soon figured out that an attack would follow after the
> priest retired. So they started killing the exhorter before he could
> finish speaking.
Pre-emptive strike.
> Naturally, the Spanish soon had a shortage of priests
> willing to go to the front and ask the the heathens to convert, so they
> resorted to letting the priests give the exhortation from the rear.
> Where the Aztecs couldn't even hear what they wouldn't understand. But
> once the priest was finished, the attack could begin.
But first -- chi chi ...
Reality_CheckŠ
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:49:50 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
>>
>>"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:cn1u7495tkebte34u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:31:45 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Officer
>>>>>
>>>>>>>willing to have police on the corners able to stop people at random
>>>>>>>(on of a basis of bias) and demand their "papers", and if they don't
>>>>>>>like the papers have the people hauled off to a camp for disposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that people should suffer because of what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not rational.
>>>>
>>>>Nor is it moral or ethical.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>Whoooooooooop! There it is!
>>
>>
> Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
> means "what I think that you should do".
And only a lowlife Repugnikkkan like you would refer to morality
and ethics at "irrelevant".
Reality_CheckŠ
And send his illegal half-breed free-loading family with him... but torture
them first to see if they are "terrorists".
Deadrat
news:n1rv74d6lu21nv4qq...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:23:09 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <1eLfk.13392$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>news:tt1u749o0eu42r75c...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:40:41 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in alt.abortion
>>> with message-id <dywfk.29797$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>news:lb2t74t6esop0og17...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:54:44 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in
>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> <UYnfk.29708$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote in
>>>>>>news:7ldr74lrppv3elmj0...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:09:56 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> in
>>>>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>>>> <Uggfk.18089$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you say so. Precious little evidence in your posts though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's your problem, not mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, possibly. If there are enough ignoramuses around like you,
>>>>>>then the center cannot hold. Which is why I consider it a public
>>>>>>service to demonstrate your ignorance and your callousness and
>>>>>>your hatred for America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Demonstrate away.
>>>>
>>>>That's what this thread has been about. Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> This thread is about deporting illegals. I am not concerned with
>>> your discussions on other topics.
>>
>>No other topic; just your ignorance about illegal immigration.
>
> The are here illegally. There is nothing else to know.
Ignorant and proud of it.
<snip/>
>>That's because you're an ignoramus. I can't force you to fix that,
>>but don't expect me to adopt your silly views.
>>
>>> You certainly have a strange way of agreeing with me.
>>
>>That it's legal to deport illegals? Why is that strange?
>>
>>It's your methods that I object to.
>
> Arrest and immediate deportation? Do you prefer a lollypop and a
> pretty please?
False dichotomy.
But thanks for playing.
<snip/>
>>>>>>Your fear is so overwhelming that all you can see is illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but there are a lot of them. Identifying them is not my job -
>>>>> that is up to law enforcement.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for sharing another irrelevant comment.
>>>
>>> OK. You got me. I actually commented on one of your little digs.
>>> Sorry about that.
>>
>>I'm sorry. Was it supposed to be a joke?
>
> No, self-commiseration.
Should I "(shutter)" here?
<snip/>
>>> Not yet, but there are a lot of databases now and it is only a
>>> matter of time.
>>
>>No, it's not. We'll add database operations to the list of things
>>about which you're ignorant.
>
> That is amusing, since I was working with the first commercial on-line
> databases that existed over 40 years ago.
>
> And retired from a company whose name is synonymous with computers.
Hey, anybody can play C. J. Date in cyberspace.
<snip/>
>>> Do you contend there are very few of them?
>>
>>Anchor babies? No, it's your claim that there are many of them. So
>>it's your burden to provide the evidence.
>
> One is sufficient.
Not to prove your claim of many, it's not.
<snip/>
>>> The necessary laws now exist.
>>
>>How's that workin'? And if that's true, then why do you insist on
>>changing the Constitution?
>
> To eliminate the citizenship loophole.
I thought you said the "necessary laws now exist." Pick a hobby horse
and stick to it.
<snip/>