Why Not The Term: "Anchor Cities"?

[don Gabacho]

Why not term U.S. cities that have fallen victim to the MxGov's, and its
allied Latino governments', deliberate colonization of the U.S. for what
they are: "anchor cities"?

Such would include cities which have perceptible proxies of the MxGov as
mayors. Los Angeles for example. Plus U.S. cities targeted for such
incorporation into Mexicas governance and now termed "sanctuary cities"?

Or is calling things for what they are---ex: 'colonization' for
so-called "immigration"---still beyond the will of
reasonable people?

[plainolamerican]

Why Not The Term: "Anchor Cities"?
---
very good!

great idea: we should designate Anchor or Sanctuary Cities so that
visitors will know which cities to avoid. Most Americans would rather
visit cities that uphold federal immigration laws and avoid the
socialist liberal minded cities who give aid and comfort to illegals.

[Hisler]

Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
now typical posts that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of
Drudge Report where people just share some article they saw on the
internet.

[emoneyjoe]

What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
"terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
against any citizen they should be prosecuted.

[Hisler]

It's a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law section of the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution to give illegal aliens
diplomatic immunity from laws that are applied to citizens and lawful
resident. Therefore, Anchor Cities are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

[deadrat]

States and cities can't give diplomatic immunity to anyone.

How clueless can you get?

[Hisler]

Sanctuary cities do just that. They give de facto diplomatic immunity
to illegal aliens.

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:59:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

This would depend on the reason for the discrimination. If it's
due to the person being part of a protected class, then yes.
If not, then no.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:13:06 -0600, Hisler <his...@cocks.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
>>> now typical posts that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
>>> mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of
>>> Drudge Report where people just share some article they saw on the
>>> internet.
>>
>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>> "terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>> against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>
>
>It's a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law section of the 14th
>Amendment of the United States Constitution to give illegal aliens
>diplomatic immunity from laws that are applied to citizens and lawful
>resident. Therefore, Anchor Cities are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Whereas cities can't grant diplomatic immunity, you can't argue
the 14th Amendment angle.

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:45:15 -0600, Hisler <his...@cocks.net> wrote:

[...]

>>>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>>>> "terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>>>> against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law section of the 14th
>>> Amendment of the United States Constitution to give illegal aliens
>>> diplomatic immunity from laws that are applied to citizens and lawful
>>> resident. Therefore, Anchor Cities are in violation of the 14th
>>> Amendment.
>>
>> States and cities can't give diplomatic immunity to anyone.
>>
>> How clueless can you get?
>>
>
>Sanctuary cities do just that. They give de facto diplomatic immunity
>to illegal aliens.

How?

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[deadrat]

Aren't you embarrassed to look so stupid in cyber-public?

Diplomatic immunity means that the diplomat immunized isn't subject to
any US or state law. Illegal aliens are arrested and tried for state
crimes all the time.

Some cities have announced that their police will not enforce or help
enforce federal immigration law. They're not allowed to to the former
on their own and they can't be coerced into the latter.

[deadrat]

Not quite. If it's due to a person being a member of a *suspect* class,
then discrimination is prohibited unless the reason can survive strict
scrutiny. Even so, I don't think the discrimination is a criminal matter.

[Mr.Sandman]

On 6/13/2012 1:18 PM, Hisler wrote:
>
> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
> now typical posts

What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
and incoherent nonsense. There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
Mexican "colonization." These are just wild ideas and thoughts from his
demented imaginations.

[Hisler]

By being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

[Hisler]

Not in sanctuary cities.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:04:15 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:59:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:18:35 -0600, Hisler <his...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/13/2012 6:39 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> Why not term U.S. cities that have fallen victim to the MxGov's, and its
>>>> allied Latino governments', deliberate colonization of the U.S. for what
>>>> they are: "anchor cities"?
>>>>
>>>> Such would include cities which have perceptible proxies of the MxGov as
>>>> mayors. Los Angeles for example. Plus U.S. cities targeted for such
>>>> incorporation into Mexicas governance and now termed "sanctuary cities"?
>>>>
>>>> Or is calling things for what they are---ex: 'colonization' for
>>>> so-called "immigration"---still beyond the will of reasonable people?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
>>>now typical posts that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
>>>mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of
>>>Drudge Report where people just share some article they saw on the
>>>internet.
>>
>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>>"terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>>against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>
>
> This would depend on the reason for the discrimination. If it's
>due to the person being part of a protected class, then yes.
> If not, then no.

What do you mean "protected class"? There
is no reason for any discrimination of any _citizen_,
justice cannot make assumptions.

And there is no reason for 'protection" that
is any different than the protection of every _citizen_.


Illegals are not supposed to have the same
protection as citizens, their life and health on
a temporary basis should be protected until
they are sent home.
The issue of children born here complicates
things, plus the fact that a great percentage of
illegals are of the same ethnic group also causes
a problem even though it should help identify
illegals.

And some of these issues work backwards,
the descendants of native peoples that were
born in and resided in the southwest states
are not protected from the gross assumptions
and gossip of people who do not know much
about American history.

So it is a complicated problem, that just
means each case has to be worked through
carefully, both to send illegals home, and to
protect American citizens.

[Brown Stain]

In article <bp8Cr.12559$Le4....@newsfe17.iad>

"Mr.Sandman" <some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/2012 1:18 PM, Hisler wrote:
> >
> > Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
> > now typical posts
>
> What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
> and incoherent nonsense. There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
> Mexican "colonization." These are just wild ideas and thoughts from his
> demented imaginations.

San Francisco's declaration as a sanctuary city doesn't qualify?

Santa Ana doesn't qualify?

Riverside doesn't qualify?

Corona doesn't qualify?

What planet are you on?

[deadrat]

Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?

Too bad.

So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
deport illegals. If they commit other crimes, they get arrested and
tried like anyone else.
<snip/>

[deadrat]

Discrimination happens all the time. Liquor age 21? Discrimination
against the young.

He means "suspect class." Certain classifications like race are called
suspect classifications, and the courts require strict scrutiny of laws
that differentiate on race.

> And there is no reason for 'protection" that
> is any different than the protection of every _citizen_.

No, a history of previous discrimination can determine a classification
for which current discrimination is not allowed.

> Illegals are not supposed to have the same
> protection as citizens, their life and health on
> a temporary basis should be protected until
> they are sent home.

They have the same civil rights as citizens. They can't vote, and they
cannot avoid deportation.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 7:20 PM, Brown Stain wrote:
> In article<bp8Cr.12559$Le4....@newsfe17.iad>
> "Mr.Sandman"<some...@overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/13/2012 1:18 PM, Hisler wrote:
>>>
>>> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
>>> now typical posts
>>
>> What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
>> and incoherent nonsense. There are no "Anchor cities" and there is no
>> Mexican "colonization." These are just wild ideas and thoughts from his
>> demented imaginations.
>
> San Francisco's declaration as a sanctuary city doesn't qualify?
>
> Santa Ana doesn't qualify?
>
> Riverside doesn't qualify?
>
> Corona doesn't qualify?
>
> What planet are you on?

<snip/>

The planet where he can think clearly? These cities just don't try to
deport illegals. But that's not there job anyway.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/13/2012 2:30 PM, deadrat wrote:

> States and cities can't give diplomatic immunity to anyone.
>
> How clueless can you get?

Yet they do.

"How clueless can you get"?

Even when the States and Cities should be tasking the Feds with removing
the Mexican government's consulates from their midst for the Feds giving
the Mexican Government virtual immunity for that foriegn power having
and using U.S. voter registration forms.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/13/2012 5:39 PM, deadrat wrote:

> Aren't you embarrassed to look so stupid in cyber-public?

Look at yourself. The post is about the Mexican Government's and its
allied Latino governments', deliberate colonization of the USA whether
their colonists (spuriously mistermed "legal" or "illegal
immigrants"---be they willing or mostly not) and those government's
successful targeting of US cities (plus swing districts) for the
colonization.

While victimizing the US but cloaked in benevolence, it is you and your
ilk, along with the MxGov, who are victimizing the illegals.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:

> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>
> Too bad.
>
> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
> deport illegals

Which is "immunity."

"Does it hurt to that ignorant? No?

Too bad."

[don Gabacho]

On 6/13/2012 6:23 PM, Mr.Sandman wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 1:18 PM, Hisler wrote:
>>
>> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the
>> now typical posts
>
> What's excellent about it? Don Gabcrapo's posts are always irrelevant
> and incoherent nonsense.

Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?

[don Gabacho]

On 6/13/2012 8:59 PM, deadrat wrote:

> These cities just don't try to
> deport illegals.

"Just don't try"?

Whenever they have they've had to learn that its the pertaining Consul
Generals of Mexico running (as the Mexican Government does state) their
"jurisdictions."

>But that's not there job anyway.

So why the "declarations"?

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 6:54 PM, deadrat wrote:

> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
> deport illegals.

YOU are lying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Sanctuary city is a term given to a city in the United States that
follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These
practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto).
The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds
or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by
not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's
immigration status.

http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
programs too.


The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in
May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police
will also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they
are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

> If they commit other crimes, they get arrested and tried like anyone else.
> <snip/>

Bullshit.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 6:58 PM, deadrat wrote:
> They have the same civil rights as citizens. They can't vote, and they
> cannot avoid deportation.

Why are you protecting criminals, swill?

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 6:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
> These cities just don't try to deport illegals.

Bullshit, they do worse than just that:

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:00 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 5:39 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> Aren't you embarrassed to look so stupid in cyber-public?
>
> Look at yourself. The post is about the Mexican Government's and its
> allied Latino governments', deliberate colonization of the USA whether
> their colonists (spuriously mistermed "legal" or "illegal
> immigrants"---be they willing or mostly not) and those government's
> successful targeting of US cities (plus swing districts) for the
> colonization.

Don Gazpacho, you permanently wear the dunce's cap in this corner of
cyberspace. "Colonization" is just part of your ignorant and malicious
fever dreams.

>
> While victimizing the US but cloaked in benevolence, it is you and your
> ilk, along with the MxGov, who are victimizing the illegals.

My "ilk"? Don't use words you can't define.

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>
>> Too bad.
>>
>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>> deport illegals
>
> Which is "immunity."

<snip/>

No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
crime, and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
authorities. The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.
Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway, and which
they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.

[deadrat]

Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:13 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 8:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> These cities just don't try to
>> deport illegals.
>
> "Just don't try"?
>
> Whenever they have they've had to learn that its the pertaining Consul
> Generals of Mexico running (as the Mexican Government does state) their
> "jurisdictions."

Could you translate that into coherent Spanish and then back into English.

>> But that's not there job anyway.
>
> So why the "declarations"?

It's mostly a political publicity stunt. It's a declaration that they
won't assist the feds in policing immigration law violations. That's
their right: state officials cannot be required by the feds to enforce
federal law.

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 6:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>
>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>> deport illegals.
>
> YOU are lying:

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a liar.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
>
> Sanctuary city is a term given to a city in the United States that
> follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These
> practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto).
> The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds
> or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by
> not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's
> immigration status.

Which is pretty much what I said. The feds may not require state
officials to enforce federal law. States may volunteer to help enforce
immigration law, and the DoJ has joint programs. But these are voluntary.

>
> http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
>
> Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
> Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
> cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
> so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
> city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
> illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
> distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
> aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
> programs too.

Which doesn't make what I said untrue either. The feds might be able to
prohibit states and municipalities from barring the transfer of
immigration status data that's already been collected, but they can't
require states to collect such data. The feds can condition the
allocation of federal funds on cooperation.

>
>
> The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in
> May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police
> will also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they
> are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

The laws allowed illegal aliens to obtain state residency and work
legally in Utah. That won't stop the feds from deporting such
residents. The law also stops Utah law enforcement personnel from
inquiring about immigration status except in felony investigations. All
legal. Thanks for making my point for me.

>> If they commit other crimes, they get arrested and tried like anyone
>> else.
>> <snip/>
>
> Bullshit.

Go here for a case in San Francisco, you pathetic ignoramus:

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

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:

What makes you think I have any capability of protecting criminals?

I'm merely stating a fact. The 14th Amendment requires due process and
equal protection of the law for all persons, not just all citizens. The
gov may have procedures different for illegals from citizens, but the
gov must protect the rights of illegals and citizens alike.

Why are you so ignorant of the Constitution, pathetic ignoramus?

[deadrat]

On 6/13/12 11:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 6:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> These cities just don't try to deport illegals.
>
> Bullshit, they do worse than just that:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
>
> Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
> Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
> cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
> so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
> city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
> illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
> distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
> aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
> programs too.

Are you so pathetically ignorant that you can't tell that the above
paragraph supports my contention?

> The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in
> May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police
> will also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they
> are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>
>>> Too bad.
>>>
>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>> deport illegals
>>
>> Which is "immunity."
> <snip/>
>
> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state

> crime,...

Who said they were---moron?

> and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
> authorities.

They are "immune" from local police handing them over to the Feds for
prosecution---moron.

> The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.

Which is "immunity"---moron.

> Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway,...

They certainly are.

The law authorizes them.

Kidnapping is a federal offense.

Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
Feds are "legally" bound to do.

> and which
> they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.

The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/14/2012 1:41 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 6:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>> deport illegals.
>>
>> YOU are lying:
>
> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a liar.

He is of course wrong.

You're a mealy-mouthed liar.

[don Gabacho]

On 6/14/2012 1:17 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/13/12 11:13 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 8:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> These cities just don't try to
>>> deport illegals.
>>
>> "Just don't try"?
>>
>> Whenever they have they've had to learn that its the pertaining Consul
>> Generals of Mexico running (as the Mexican Government does state) their
>> "jurisdictions."
>
> Could you translate that into coherent Spanish and then back into English.
>
>>> But that's not there job anyway.
>>
>> So why the "declarations"?
>
> It's mostly a political publicity stunt.

Liar. It's their declared policy.

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 2:01 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>>
>>>> Too bad.
>>>>
>>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>>> deport illegals
>>>
>>> Which is "immunity."
>> <snip/>
>>
>> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
>> crime,...
>
> Who said they were---moron?

Oh, look! One of the premiere ignoramuses of Usenet calls me a moron.

That's what "immunity" means, Don Gazpacho.

>
>> and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
>> authorities.
>
> They are "immune" from local police handing them over to the Feds for
> prosecution---moron.

But that's not general immunity, and certainly not diplomatic immunity.
And the "immunity" from local police enforcing federal law applies to
any federal law enforcement the states don't like.

>> The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.
>
> Which is "immunity"---moron.

No, it isn't, Don Gazpacho. No matter how many times you say it.

>> Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway,...
>
> They certainly are.

Nope, Don Gazpacho. States are not allowed to enforce federal law
without federal authorization and oversight.
>
> The law authorizes them.

The feds can't force the states to enforce federal law, ignoramus.

>
> Kidnapping is a federal offense.

Are you claiming illegals are immune from prosecution for kidnapping?

> Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
> arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
> Feds are "legally" bound to do.

They can if they want. They don't have to if they don't want.

>
>> and which they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.
>
> The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.

I don't speak Gazpacho. What does that mean in English?

[deadrat]

You of course provide no evidence of that. Imagine my surprise.

>
> You're a mealy-mouthed liar.

Oh, look! One of the premiere ignoramuses on Usenet calls me a liar.

And "manly-mouthed"? Really? I say it outright every chance I get:
you're a xenophobic, malicious ignoramus.

[deadrat]

Oh, look! One of the premiere ignoramuses on Usenet calls me a liar.

> It's their declared policy.

Why yes it is, Don Gazpacho. A completely legal declared policy.

Why couldn't it also be a political publicity stunt?

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:36:10 -0600, Hisler <his...@cocks.net> wrote:

>By 6/13/2012 3:04 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:45:15 -0600, Hisler<his...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]

>>
>>>>>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>>>>>> "terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>>>>>> against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> It's a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law section of the 14th
>>>>> Amendment of the United States Constitution to give illegal aliens
>>>>> diplomatic immunity from laws that are applied to citizens and lawful
>>>>> resident. Therefore, Anchor Cities are in violation of the 14th
>>>>> Amendment.
>>>>

>>>> States and cities can't give diplomatic immunity to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> How clueless can you get?
>>>>
>>>

>>> Sanctuary cities do just that. They give de facto diplomatic immunity
>>> to illegal aliens.
>>

>> How?
>
>By being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.
>

The problem is that cities can't grant diplomatic immunity.

--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:54:37 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>> Sanctuary cities do just that. They give de facto diplomatic immunity to
>>>> illegal aliens.
>>>
>>> Aren't you embarrassed to look so stupid in cyber-public?
>>>
>>> Diplomatic immunity means that the diplomat immunized isn't subject to
>>> any US or state law. Illegal aliens are arrested and tried for state
>>> crimes all the time.
>>
>> Not in sanctuary cities.
>
>Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>
>Too bad.
>
>So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>deport illegals. If they commit other crimes, they get arrested and
>tried like anyone else.

My understanding is that they can't enforce federal law. If an
illegal commits a crime, ICE can be informed that an illegal is in
custody, but they can't actually arrest someone for being illegal.

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:43:14 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/12 4:04 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:59:23 -0400, emoneyjoe<emon...@iglou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:18:35 -0600, Hisler<his...@cocks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/13/2012 6:39 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>> Why not term U.S. cities that have fallen victim to the MxGov's, and its
>>>>> allied Latino governments', deliberate colonization of the U.S. for what
>>>>> they are: "anchor cities"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Such would include cities which have perceptible proxies of the MxGov as
>>>>> mayors. Los Angeles for example. Plus U.S. cities targeted for such
>>>>> incorporation into Mexicas governance and now termed "sanctuary cities"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is calling things for what they are---ex: 'colonization' for
>>>>> so-called "immigration"---still beyond the will of reasonable people?
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Excellent post. I like that you wrote your own thoughts instead of the

>>>> now typical posts that consist of stuff cut and pasted from the
>>>> mainstream media. 90 percent of usenet seems to be a variation of
>>>> Drudge Report where people just share some article they saw on the
>>>> internet.
>>>

>>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>>> "terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>>> against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>>
>>

>> This would depend on the reason for the discrimination. If it's
>> due to the person being part of a protected class, then yes.
>> If not, then no.
>

>Not quite. If it's due to a person being a member of a *suspect* class,

I'm not familiar with the term suspect class.

>then discrimination is prohibited unless the reason can survive strict
>scrutiny. Even so, I don't think the discrimination is a criminal matter.
>

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[Kent Wills]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:02:21 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:

[...]

>>> What did he say? It doesn't matter what anybody
>>>"terms" them, if local or state officials discriminate
>>>against any citizen they should be prosecuted.
>>>
>>
>> This would depend on the reason for the discrimination. If it's
>>due to the person being part of a protected class, then yes.
>> If not, then no.
>

> What do you mean "protected class"? There
>is no reason for any discrimination of any _citizen_,
>justice cannot make assumptions.
>

Discrimination because of race, religion, national origin, etc.
is illegal in most cases.

> And there is no reason for 'protection" that
>is any different than the protection of every _citizen_.
>

Agreed.

>
> Illegals are not supposed to have the same
>protection as citizens, their life and health on
>a temporary basis should be protected until
>they are sent home.

Yes.

> The issue of children born here complicates
>things, plus the fact that a great percentage of
>illegals are of the same ethnic group also causes
>a problem even though it should help identify
>illegals.
>

So all Chinese should be deported just because some are here
illegally?

> And some of these issues work backwards,
>the descendants of native peoples that were
>born in and resided in the southwest states
>are not protected from the gross assumptions
>and gossip of people who do not know much
>about American history.
>

Being ignorant of history is not illegal.

> So it is a complicated problem, that just
>means each case has to be worked through
>carefully, both to send illegals home, and to
>protect American citizens.

Agreed.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:01:03 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>
wrote:

>On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>>
>>>> Too bad.
>>>>
>>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>>> deport illegals
>>>
>>> Which is "immunity."
>> <snip/>
>>
>> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
>> crime,...
>
>Who said they were---moron?
>

You did. You claim they have diplomatic immunity.

>> and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
>> authorities.
>
>They are "immune" from local police handing them over to the Feds for
>prosecution---moron.
>

That's not diplomatic immunity, stupid.

>> The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.
>
>Which is "immunity"---moron.
>

So they have it and they don't?
How do you hold such wildly contradicting views?

>> Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway,...
>
>They certainly are.
>

Since when?

>The law authorizes them.
>

Cite the law that does so.

>Kidnapping is a federal offense.

Yes. And?

>
>Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
>arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
>Feds are "legally" bound to do.
>

And if they arrest someone who is illegal, they can inform ICE
that an illegal is in custody.

>> and which
>> they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.
>
>The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.
>

I've read that sentence several times and I still can't figure
out what you're trying to get across.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
> "Colonization" is just part of your ignorant and malicious fever dreams.

You wear the mantle of liar, for now and always:

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
“Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…

• In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
by its borders.”

• Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated,
“California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it
should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be
held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don't like such
demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr.
Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown.)

• Mexico's President Fox has been unrelenting in his brazen demands on
the United States, starting with open borders even before he was
elected. He has called for the border to be “a joining line.” His visits
to the U.S. have been filled with endless requirements for Mexican
citizens illegally in this country — free healthcare,
taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegals at state colleges and
universities, guestworker programs and amnesty for all.

Incidentally, we shouldn't be surprised at such shenanigans. The world
is full of revanchist fantasies, namely that some vague territorial
claim from centuries before should form modern national boundaries. The
Chinese invaded Tibet in 1949, with the excuse that an eighth-century
marriage had made Tibet a part of China. (Is there a Chinese word for
lebensraum?) Chinese flowing into Siberia argue that the Amur region is
actually part of China. (More on the Chinese demographic invasion of
Russia.) The Balkans have been a recent example of the power of
warmed-over nationalism, when Milosovic whipped Serbs into a murderous
frenzy by summoning the ghosts of the Battle of Kosovo (600 years ago)
as he urged them to “take back” what had been stolen from them. In the
case of the former Yugoslavia, revanchism was the excuse for genocide.

Encouraged by their leaders in both countries, the 20 million Mexicans
in America are similarly emboldened to insist that the United States
surrender to their demands, particularly amnesty which will speed the
acquisition of political power. And when California becomes majority
Mexican around 2028, will those people call for political unification
with their cultural homeland? Their leaders are planning for such a
scenario.

It's hard to fathom how America's elected Congressional leaders, those
who swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect the nation, are
prepared to give it away for some perceived short-term political gain,
if that. The front man for globalist corporations who currently occupies
the White House is allowing Mexico City to dictate America's immigration
policy, while few in his party object. Does anyone think that Vicente
Fox cares about what happens to America? He sees the United States as a
full refrigerator and he is hungry, very hungry.

Why do American public officials value so little what thousands have
fought and died to protect? A foreign power has stated its plans to
conquer this nation by demographic warfare, but in Washington,
apparently no one cares. One wonders what Secretary of State Colin
Powell thinks about surrending American sovereignty to a foreign power.
He was a general in the U.S. Army and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
after all. Doesn't it bother him to be following the wishes of a foreign
leader? Why does the most powerful nation in the world cower before the
third-world country to the south?

— by Brenda Walker





IN THEIR OWN WORDS:



A Talk with Mexico's Migration Chief
In this informative interview, Juan Hernández stated, “There are several
million Mexican people in the United States … These individuals need to
be legalized, they need to be able to come home and see their families
and not have to cross a dangerous border… they need to be able to have
living conditions that are proper, with dignity; to have driver's
licenses; to use the banks in the United States. They need their
dignity, instead of having to live like criminals.”



Southwest shall secede from U.S., prof predicts
Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of
New Mexico, said, “I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by
the end of the century my students' kids will live in it, sovereign and
free.”

Mario Obledo Calls for Burning of Anti-Immigrant Sign
Mr. Obledo was once the California of Secretary Health, Education and
Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown, so one might expect that he would have
learned a little more American respect for free speech, but evidently
not. “I'm going to deface the billboard or burn it,” stated Mr. Obledo.
(The billboard in question read, “Welcome to California, the Illegal
Immigration State. Don't let this happen to your state.”)

La Voz de Aztlan
Chicano extremists at their hate-filled worst, including an especially
heavy dose of anti-Semitism.

Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztl�n (MEChA) — Constitution of
National Organization
Document opens, “Chicano and Chicana students of Aztl�n must take upon
themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the
community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous
consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the
Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztl�n.” (That's the
Southwestern U.S.)

MEChA National Webpages
Manifesto demands, e.g., “Aztl�n belongs to indigenous people, who are
sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture.”

Mexican official in El Paso
Mexican Immigration Commissioner Juan Hernandez stated, “We have
recognized that the Mexican population is 100 million in Mexico and the
23 million who live in the United States. ... We are a united nation.”

Opinion of 58 Percent of Mexicans: American Southwest Belongs to Us
A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of
Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the
territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the
U.S. to enter. On the U.S. side of the border, 68 percent of Americans
think that troops should be stationed on the Mexican border to keep
unauthorized Mexicans out. Only slightly fewer (65 percent) oppose
giving amnesty to those illegals already in the U.S. Other coverage here.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
> They're not immune from prosecution for any state crime,

You're lying- fuckwit:

http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
programs too.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:

>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>
> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
>

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

Mexicans Have Plans
for the American Southwest

They vow to take it over

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:17 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Could you translate that into coherent Spanish and then back into English.

Eat some facts, pendejo:

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:41 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a liar.

You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 6:58 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> They have the same civil rights as citizens. They can't vote, and they
>>> cannot avoid deportation.
>>
>> Why are you protecting criminals, swill?
>
> What makes you think I have any capability

Yes, you are by all appearance an incapable traitorous loudmouth, so
fuck off.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/13/2012 11:46 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Thanks for making my point for me.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 1:17 AM, deadrat wrote:

> Oh, look! One of the premiere ignoramuses of Usenet calls me a moron.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 1:19 AM, deadrat wrote:
> You of course provide no evidence of that.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 1:21 AM, deadrat wrote:
> Why couldn't it also be a political publicity stunt?

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
> The problem is that cities can't grant diplomatic immunity.

Ever hear of the Vatican, dumb fuck?

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:

> My understanding is that they can't enforce federal law.

No federal interstate goes through any city and the federally mandated
speed limits upon such can not be enforced?

You dumb fuck.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 5:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
> So all Chinese should be deported just because some are here
> illegally?

Why are you shilling for anchor babies?

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 5:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:

> I've read that sentence several times and I still can't figure
> out what you're trying to get across.
>
> --

[don Gabacho]

On 6/14/2012 7:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:01:03 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>>>> deport illegals
>>>>
>>>> Which is "immunity."
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
>>> crime,...
>>
>> Who said they were---moron?
>>
>

> You did...

Reread the posts. It is Deadrat who deliberately deflects the thread to
make a claim of "diplomatic immunity;" and then, like the lemming you
are, you follow suit, now, right off a cliff.

And never have I thought or stated that anyone is "immune for any state
crime."

> You claim they have diplomatic immunity.

Moron.

>>> and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
>>> authorities.
>>
>> They are "immune" from local police handing them over to the Feds for
>> prosecution---moron.
>>
>
> That's not diplomatic immunity, stupid.

No kidding "stupid."

Deadrat creates a non-issue and then you follow suit to assign others to
being the ones making and even stating the issue.

You're a malicious liar.

>>> The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.
>>
>> Which is "immunity"---moron.
>>
>
> So they have it and they don't?

It's "immunity."

That first Deadrat and then yourself want to claim its "diplomatic," or
not, is your problem.

> How do you hold such wildly contradicting views?

How do you "hold" the "wildly contradicting views" invented by Deadrat
to be any issue at all much less ascribe to someone else?

You must thoroughly enjoy being made a fool.

>>> Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway,...
>>
>> They certainly are.
>>
>
> Since when?
>
>> The law authorizes them.
>>
>
> Cite the law that does so.

The "law" of the land (which includes obviously the land's cities) that
describes them "illegal aliens" plus the U.S. Constitution obligating
all public office holders to protect and defend.

The Feds could prosecute anchor city police and their departments for
aiding and abetting so-called illegal immigrants.

But that's just another red herring.

Colonization is obviously illegal.

>> Kidnapping is a federal offense.
>
> Yes. And?

"And"?

A city's officials declaring their city a sanctuary for kidnappers would
certainly make them "prosecutable."

Likewise police refusing to detect and detain kidnappers.

>>
>> Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
>> arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
>> Feds are "legally" bound to do.
>>
>
> And if they arrest someone who is illegal, they can inform ICE
> that an illegal is in custody.

Yes. But sanctuary cities are saying they won't.

>>> and which
>>> they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.
>>
>> The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.
>>
>
> I've read that sentence several times and I still can't figure
> out what you're trying to get across.

That the Feds have ever been, or should be, expected "to coerce" any one
or city is just more lemming bait of Deadrat's.

City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.

You and Deadrat are, in effect, claiming law enforcement must be
"coercion" when directed at people of "authority."

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 10:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
> You're a malicious liar.

You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:

[don Gabacho]

On 6/14/2012 12:09 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 1:21 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> Why couldn't it also be a political publicity stunt?
>
> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
> Mexicans Have Plans
> for the American Southwest
>

> They vow to take it over.

You are wasting your time with Deadrat.

Note especially his obsession with "authority" of people and not the law.

He is one of "they."

[Bob Officer]

Oh how right you are, but I can certainly increase the signal to noise
ratio on him ;-)

[Bill Graham]

Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>
>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
>>
>
> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
> Mexicans Have Plans
> for the American Southwest
>
> They vow to take it over

Mexicans don't have plans for anything. If they had, they would have planned
to take their own country over many years ago, and done so. Instead, they
chose to live with he corruption hey have lived with for the last couple of
hundred years or more......

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 1:28 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>>
>>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>>
>> Mexicans Have Plans
>> for the American Southwest
>>
>> They vow to take it over
>
> Mexicans don't have plans for anything.

That's a racist statement.

> If they had, they would have
> planned to take their own country over many years ago, and done so.

Ever hear of Chiapas?

> Instead, they chose to live with he corruption hey have lived with for
> the last couple of hundred years or more......

Since when is overwhelming poverty and wealth concentrated in the hands
of barely 2 dozen ruling families a 'choice?

That's ioke say Brits "choose" to have the Royals.

Your a fucking joke.

[deadrat]

The term is a little misleading since it sounds like the members of the
class are under suspicion when it's actually the discriminatory action
that is.

The characteristics of a suspect classification are historical
discrimination, immutable or recognizable trait, or the unavailability
of protection by the political process. Whatever distinguishes the
affected group must not stop its members from contributing to society.

I guess the last would exclude those in comas.

Race, national origin, religion, and citizenship (for purposes of state
law) are recognized suspect classifications, and they trigger strict
scrutiny by the courts. I.e., laws that discriminate against these
groups must be based on an over-riding state interest and must be as
narrowly tailored as possible. Such laws almost never survive such
scrutiny.

<snip/>

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:12 PM, deadrat wrote:
> The term is a little misleading since it sounds like the members of the
> class are under suspicion when it's actually the discriminatory action
> that is.

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

Mexicans Have Plans
for the American Southwest

They vow to take it over

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:03 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 11:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> "Colonization" is just part of your ignorant and malicious fever dreams.
>
> You wear the mantle of liar, for now and always:
>
> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>
> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
> by its borders.”

This is what happens when you're an ignoramus and swallow whole quotes
taken out of context. Zedillo was talking about the importance of
Mexican ex-pats to *Mexico* The context was his discussion of an
amendment to Mexico's constitution that allows Mexican citizens to have
dual citizenship. He didn't mean that he thinks Mexico has sovereign
authority outside its borders.

>
> • Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated,
> “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it
> should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be
> held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don't like such
> demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr.
> Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and
> Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown.)

Seems a bit optimistic from his point of view. California's population
is only 20% Hispanic now. And Sparky? "Hispanic" doesn't mean "alien."

> • Mexico's President Fox has been unrelenting in his brazen demands on
> the United States, starting with open borders even before he was
> elected. He has called for the border to be “a joining line.” His visits
> to the U.S. have been filled with endless requirements for Mexican
> citizens illegally in this country — free healthcare,
> taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegals at state colleges and
> universities, guestworker programs and amnesty for all.

You cite no sources. Probably because this is just crap you've been
told. But even if it's true, who cares what Mexico's President has to say?

<snipped: more stuff you've been told and don't understand/>

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:04 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> They're not immune from prosecution for any state crime,
>
> You're lying- fuckwit:

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a fuckwit.

>
>
>
> http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
>
> Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
> Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
> cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
> so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
> city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
> illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
> distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
> aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
> programs too.

You keep quoting this but it doesn't contradict what I've posted.

>
>
> The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in
> May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police
> will also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they
> are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

You keep posting this but it isn't relevant to what I've posted.

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:05 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>
>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
>>
>
> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
> Mexicans Have Plans
> for the American Southwest
>
> They vow to take it over

Bullshit. More of your paranoid fantasies. Why don't you join Don
Gazpacho? You can play with yourselves side by side.

<snipped: more crap you've posted before and still don't understand/>

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:07 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 11:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2012 6:58 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> They have the same civil rights as citizens. They can't vote, and they
>>>> cannot avoid deportation.
>>>
>>> Why are you protecting criminals, swill?
>>
>> What makes you think I have any capability
>
>
> Yes, you are by all appearance an incapable traitorous loudmouth, so
> fuck off.

Look up "treason" in the Constitution. Why are you so ignorant about
the country you profess to love so much?

<snipped: same old crap/>

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:08 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 1:19 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> You of course provide no evidence of that.
>
> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

And still haven't.

<snipped: same old crap/>

[deadrat]

Uh, Sparky, can you get any more ignorant? "The Vatican" is actually
Stato della Città del Vaticano. It's a sovereign state as well as a
city. Like Singapore. It's diplomatic powers derive from it's
recognition as an independent nation. No *US* city can have that status.

Did you forget that we're talking about US cities?

[deadrat]

Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me dumb.

No, Sparky, you're the clueless one. First of all, there's no
"federally mandated speed limits," and there haven't been since 1995.
Even back in the day, the 55 mph speed limit was adopted by states
"voluntarily" to keep their share of federal highway funds. Any state
that wanted a higher speed limit was free to forgo the funds.

Can you get any more ignorant? Every time I ask, you post evidence that
you can.

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 7:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:01:03 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>>>>> deport illegals
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is "immunity."
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
>>>> crime,...
>>>
>>> Who said they were---moron?
>>>
>>
>> You did...
>
> Reread the posts. It is Deadrat who deliberately deflects the thread to
> make a claim of "diplomatic immunity;"

It wasn't me who claimed it was "diplomatic immunity."

<snip/>

> The "law" of the land (which includes obviously the land's cities) that
> describes them "illegal aliens" plus the U.S. Constitution obligating
> all public office holders to protect and defend.

No, Don Gazpacho. Cite the section of the United States Code.

> The Feds could prosecute anchor city police and their departments for
> aiding and abetting so-called illegal immigrants.

No they couldn't.

> But that's just another red herring.
>
> Colonization is obviously illegal.

Colonization is just part of your fever dream, you malicious ignoramus.

>>> Kidnapping is a federal offense.
>>
>> Yes. And?
>
> "And"?
>
> A city's officials declaring their city a sanctuary for kidnappers would
> certainly make them "prosecutable."

I doubt it. A city official actually harboring a suspect would.

>
> Likewise police refusing to detect and detain kidnappers.

No they aren't. Name one.

>>> Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
>>> arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
>>> Feds are "legally" bound to do.
>>>
>>
>> And if they arrest someone who is illegal, they can inform ICE
>> that an illegal is in custody.
>
> Yes. But sanctuary cities are saying they won't.

Which is their right.

>
>>>> and which
>>>> they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.
>>>
>>> The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.
>>>
>>
>> I've read that sentence several times and I still can't figure
>> out what you're trying to get across.
>
> That the Feds have ever been, or should be, expected "to coerce" any one
> or city is just more lemming bait of Deadrat's.

Keep me out of your incoherence.

> City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
> prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.

City officials obviously cannot obstruct federal officials in the
latter's law enforcement efforts. They're not obligated to help, however.

> You and Deadrat are, in effect, claiming law enforcement must be
> "coercion" when directed at people of "authority."

Of course not, you ignoramus. I'm saying that federal officials cannot
coerce state official into enforcing federal law.

[deadrat]

On 6/14/12 11:45 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 10:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> You're a malicious liar.
>
> You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:

Yeah, yeah. I know. That's all ya got.

<snipped: your cut and paste/>

[deadrat]

I've quoted the law at you constantly, you diamantine ignoramus.

>
> He is one of "they."

All you've got is your xenophobia, fear of "they."

[deadrat]

How are ya gonna do that, Sparky? You're all noise.

Borrowed noise at that.

[Kent Wills]

I'm not. Why are you lying and presenting that I am? Are you
unable to defend your position without lying?

--
I could write about nobel gasses, but there would be no reaction.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:41:00 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>

wrote:

>On 6/14/2012 7:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:01:03 -0400, don Gabacho <jpas...@nettaxi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/14/2012 1:14 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/12 11:03 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2012 8:54 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it hurt to be that ignorant? No?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So-called "sanctuary" cities do no more than refuse to do anything to
>>>>>> deport illegals
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is "immunity."
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> No, Don Gazpacho. They're not immune from prosecution for any state
>>>> crime,...
>>>
>>> Who said they were---moron?
>>>
>>
>> You did...
>
>Reread the posts. It is Deadrat who deliberately deflects the thread to
>make a claim of "diplomatic immunity;" and then, like the lemming you
>are, you follow suit, now, right off a cliff.
>
>And never have I thought or stated that anyone is "immune for any state
>crime."
>

You claim they have diplomatic immunity.

Message-ID: <jral7d$bsn$1...@dont-email.me>

>
>> You claim they have diplomatic immunity.
>
>Moron.

How low you must think yourself to be if you see me, one so
superior to you, as a moron.

>
>>>> and they're not immune from deportation or prosecution by federal
>>>> authorities.
>>>
>>> They are "immune" from local police handing them over to the Feds for
>>> prosecution---moron.
>>>
>>
>> That's not diplomatic immunity, stupid.
>
>No kidding "stupid."
>
>Deadrat creates a non-issue and then you follow suit to assign others to
>being the ones making and even stating the issue.

You made the claim of diplomatic immunity.

Message-ID: <jral7d$bsn$1...@dont-email.me>

>
>You're a malicious liar.
>

Cite one lie from me. One is all I ask.
I'm waiting...

>>>> The city cops just won't arrest them for visa violations.
>>>
>>> Which is "immunity"---moron.
>>>
>>
>> So they have it and they don't?
>
>It's "immunity."
>
>That first Deadrat and then yourself want to claim its "diplomatic," or
>not, is your problem.
>

You claimed diplomatic immunity.

Message-ID: <jral7d$bsn$1...@dont-email.me>

>> How do you hold such wildly contradicting views?
>
>How do you "hold" the "wildly contradicting views" invented by Deadrat
>to be any issue at all much less ascribe to someone else?

You made the claim.

>
>You must thoroughly enjoy being made a fool.

If it should happen, I'll let you know how I feel.

>
>>>> Which city cops not authorized to do on their own anyway,...
>>>
>>> They certainly are.
>>>
>>
>> Since when?
>>
>>> The law authorizes them.
>>>
>>
>> Cite the law that does so.
>
>
>The "law" of the land (which includes obviously the land's cities) that
>describes them "illegal aliens" plus the U.S. Constitution obligating
>all public office holders to protect and defend.
>

The Constitution is the law of the land.

>The Feds could prosecute anchor city police and their departments for
>aiding and abetting so-called illegal immigrants.
>

Local law enforcement can't enforce federal immigration law. They
can detain an illegal if arrested for another crime, then inform the
feds that they have an illegal in custody.

>But that's just another red herring.
>
>Colonization is obviously illegal.
>

So you can't cite the law. I didn't expect you would, since
there is none.

>
>
>>> Kidnapping is a federal offense.
>>
>> Yes. And?
>
>"And"?
>
>A city's officials declaring their city a sanctuary for kidnappers would
>certainly make them "prosecutable."
>
>Likewise police refusing to detect and detain kidnappers.

I'm not aware of any police refusing such. Can you cite the
instance you reference?

>
>>>
>>> Local police have all the authority in it being an offense at all to
>>> arrest, detain and hand them over to the Feds for the deportation the
>>> Feds are "legally" bound to do.
>>>
>>
>> And if they arrest someone who is illegal, they can inform ICE
>> that an illegal is in custody.
>
>Yes. But sanctuary cities are saying they won't.
>

I've not seen anything to support your claim.

>>>> and which
>>>> they cannot be legally coerced to do by the feds.
>>>
>>> The Feds should---and are---not be expected to.
>>>
>>
>> I've read that sentence several times and I still can't figure
>> out what you're trying to get across.
>
>That the Feds have ever been, or should be, expected "to coerce" any one
>or city is just more lemming bait of Deadrat's.

If you have a problem with what Deadrat writes, take it up with
him. I have no control over what he posts.

>
>City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
>prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.

When have they defied any law? More specifically, when have they
defied enforcing a law they can't legally enforce?

>
>You and Deadrat are, in effect, claiming law enforcement must be
>"coercion" when directed at people of "authority."
>

I've made no such claim.
Again, if you have a problem with anything Deadrat has posted,
take it up with him. Crying to me won't get you anywhere.

--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:45:38 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:

>On 6/14/2012 10:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> You're a malicious liar.
>
>You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:
>

I think Don agrees with you.
Unless you think yourself a traitor. While possible, I doubt you
hold this view.

--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:08:49 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:

>
>http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
>Mexicans Have Plans
>for the American Southwest
>
>They vow to take it over
>
>
>

>Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
>in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>“Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>
>• In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>by its borders.”
>

15 years later and Mexico still hasn't taken over Belize.
They're sure are taking their sweet time.

>• Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated,
>“California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it
>should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be
>held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don't like such
>demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr.
>Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and
>Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown.)

Given the demographics, Mario's claim is possible.

>
>• Mexico's President Fox has been unrelenting in his brazen demands on
>the United States, starting with open borders even before he was
>elected. He has called for the border to be “a joining line.” His visits
>to the U.S. have been filled with endless requirements for Mexican
>citizens illegally in this country — free healthcare,
>taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegals at state colleges and
>universities, guestworker programs and amnesty for all.

He can demand all he wants. I can demand that Ana Clavel come to
leave El Salvador, come to the U.S. and live with me. This doesn't
mean it's ever going to happen.
Given how old, ugly and married I am, it surely would not happen.

--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

[Kent Wills]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:09:45 -0600, Bob Officer <C...@dri.ver> wrote:

>On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:

>> The problem is that cities can't grant diplomatic immunity.
>
>Ever hear of the Vatican, dumb fuck?

Last I knew, the Vatican was not in the U.S.
It's also its own country, stupid.

[Kent Wills]

I've always read and heard it as "protected" class.

>
>I guess the last would exclude those in comas.
>
>Race, national origin, religion, and citizenship (for purposes of state
>law) are recognized suspect classifications, and they trigger strict
>scrutiny by the courts. I.e., laws that discriminate against these
>groups must be based on an over-riding state interest and must be as
>narrowly tailored as possible. Such laws almost never survive such
>scrutiny.
>
><snip/>

Thank you. It seems we were describing the same thing.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:27 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:03 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 11:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> "Colonization" is just part of your ignorant and malicious fever dreams.
>>
>> You wear the mantle of liar, for now and always:
>>
>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>>
>> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
>> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>>
>> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>> by its borders.”
>
> This is what happens when you're an ignoramus

Yes it is, and you are, now eat some more reality bites, shitwind:

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:29 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:04 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> They're not immune from prosecution for any state crime,
>>
>> You're lying- fuckwit:
>
> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a fuckwit.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
>>
>> Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
>> Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
>> cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
>> Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
>> so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
>> city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
>> illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
>> distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
>> aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
>> programs too.
>
> You keep quoting this but it doesn't contradict what I've posted.
>

http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor
predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in
the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico.

Charles Truxillo suggests the “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the
North, is “an inevitability.”

He envisions it encompassing all of California, Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas and southern Colorado, plus the northern tier of Mexican states:
Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.

Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border “there is a growing fusion, a
reviving of connections,” Truxillo said. “Southwest Chicanos and Norteño
Mexicanos are becoming one people again.”

Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by
any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by
civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral
pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:31 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:05 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 11:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> Does it hurt to be so ignorant in public?
>>>
>>> Hey! Get your own line, Don Gazpacho. Quit colonizing mine.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>>
>> Mexicans Have Plans
>> for the American Southwest
>>
>> They vow to take it over
>
> Bullshit.

Drop dead you traitor.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:32 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:07 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/13/2012 11:45 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 6/13/12 11:21 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2012 6:58 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> They have the same civil rights as citizens. They can't vote, and they
>>>>> cannot avoid deportation.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you protecting criminals, swill?
>>>
>>> What makes you think I have any capability
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are by all appearance an incapable traitorous loudmouth, so
>> fuck off.
>
> Look up "treason" in the Constitution.

Do take a long dirt nap, traitor.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/290306ethniccleansing.htm

'Immigration Protests' Cover For Racist Ethnic Cleansing Movement
Atzlan and Mexican Klan groups rejoice at start of 'la reconquista'

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 29 2006

At the height of last year's French riots, Voz de Aztlan leader Ernesto
Cienfuegos stated that similar scenes of chaos would be witnessed on the
streets of America. As reports of violence begin to filter through, a
deliberately fomented race war hiding behind an immigration debate
creeps ever closer.

"Today, here in Los Angeles, we are already seeing ominous signs of an
impending social explosion that will make the French rebellion by Muslim
and immigrant youths seem 'tame' by comparison," said Cienfuegos on
November 8.

"All the ingredients are present including a hostile and racist police
as in France. In fact, we came close to having major riots on three
separate occasions just this year alone."

As the mainstream controlled media reports the immigration protests as
peaceful and affords them a wealth of credence and credibility, ignoring
the plethora of foreign flags compared to US flags, turn to Mexican TV
news stations and you will encounter radical proselytizing about
enacting the brutal plan of the invasion and takeover of the southern
and western American states.

Aztlan's goal, known as la reconquista, is to cede and take over the
entirety of the southern states by any means necessary and impose a
Communist militant dictatorship. President Bush's blanket amnesty
program goes a long way to helping the extremists achieve their aim.



Despite the fact that the majority of documented Hispanics oppose
illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raca
race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist
movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system
and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media
as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism.

Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and
driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic
cleansing. Flags and placards carried at marches depict white people
having their heads cut off, as seen in the picture below.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:33 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:08 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 1:19 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>> You of course provide no evidence of that.
>>
>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>
> And

Shut up traitor.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:37 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:09 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>> The problem is that cities can't grant diplomatic immunity.
>>
>> Ever hear of the Vatican, dumb fuck?
>
> Uh, Sparky, can you get any more ignorant? "The Vatican" is actually
> Stato della Città del Vaticano. It's a sovereign state as well as a
> city.

Thank you for conceding the point, cities can indeed offer diplomatic
immunity.

Now fuck off.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:10 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 5:11 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>> My understanding is that they can't enforce federal law.
>>
>> No federal interstate goes through any city and the federally mandated
>> speed limits upon such can not be enforced?
>>
>> You dumb fuck.
>
> Oh, look!

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 2:49 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Keep me out of your incoherence.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:07 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 6/14/12 11:45 AM, Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 10:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> You're a malicious liar.
>>
>> You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:
>
> Yeah, yeah.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:08 PM, deadrat wrote:

> On 6/14/12 12:00 PM, don Gabacho wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 12:09 PM, Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2012 1:21 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> Why couldn't it also be a political publicity stunt?
>>>
>>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>>>
>>> Mexicans Have Plans
>>> for the American Southwest
>>>
>>> They vow to take it over.
>>
>> You are wasting your time with Deadrat.
>>
>> Note especially his obsession with "authority" of people and not the law.
>
> I've quoted the law

[Bob Officer]

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:11:26 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2012 5:12 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
>>> So all Chinese should be deported just because some are here
>>> illegally?
>>
>> Why are you shilling for anchor babies?
>
> I'm not.

Shut up shill, you're a lightweight.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:

>> City officials are certainly not "immune" to federal or state
>> >prosecutors for not enforcing the law." In fact defying it.
> When have they defied any law?

Are you a total moron illegal shill?

http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to
cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted
so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct
city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of
illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the
distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal
aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and
programs too.

The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in
May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police
will also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they
are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:26 PM, Kent Wills wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:45:38 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2012 10:41 AM, don Gabacho wrote:
>>> You're a malicious liar.
>>
>> You need to fuck off and die, you traitor:
>>
>
> I think Don agrees with you.

I was referring to you, dumb fuck, my bad attribution.


> Unless you think yourself


Fuck off.

[Bob Officer]

On 6/14/2012 3:27 PM, Kent Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:08:49 -0600, Bob Officer<C...@dri.ver> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html
>>
>> Mexicans Have Plans
>> for the American Southwest
>>
>> They vow to take it over
>>
>>
>>
>> Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to
>> conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost
>> in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught
>> in school that the United States stole that land, which they call
>> “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…
>>
>> • In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly
>> affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed
>> by its borders.”
>>
>
> 15 years later and Mexico still hasn't taken over Belize.
> They're sure are taking their sweet time.

Frog/water/heat.

>> • Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated,
>> “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it
>> should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be
>> held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don't like such
>> demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr.
>> Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and
>> Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown.)
>
> Given the demographics, Mario's claim is possible.
>
>>
>> • Mexico's President Fox has been unrelenting in his brazen demands on
>> the United States, starting with open borders even before he was
>> elected. He has called for the border to be “a joining line.” His visits
>> to the U.S. have been filled with endless requirements for Mexican
>> citizens illegally in this country — free healthcare,
>> taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegals at state colleges and
>> universities, guestworker programs and amnesty for all.
>
> He can demand all he wants.