Recall, LOL!

[Dave the Clueless]

Go back where you belong, fucksticks. Notice it isn't Fred Johnson and
Doug Smith holding signs.

"Simon Lopez, left, and Hiliaro Islas try to collect signatures this week
in Phoenix in an effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The
recall effort failed Thursday. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-arpaio-recall-fails-20130530,0,7548060.story

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[risky biz]

On May 31 2013 9:33 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> Go back where you belong, fucksticks. Notice it isn't Fred Johnson and
> Doug Smith holding signs.
>
> "Simon Lopez, left, and Hiliaro Islas try to collect signatures this week
> in Phoenix in an effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The
> recall effort failed Thursday. "
>
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-arpaio-recall-fails-20130530,0,7548060.story

"Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa
County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on
illegal immigration . . "

What's so surprising that a group whose Constitutional civil rights are
being violated would be exactly the ones who are protesting it? What do
you have against the Constitution?

[Dave the Clueless]

Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?

[Bea Foroni]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:

>
> Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?
>
>

All of them.

[brattt]

On May 31 2013 1:15 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On May 31 2013 2:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On May 31 2013 9:33 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > > Go back where you belong, fucksticks. Notice it isn't Fred Johnson and
> > > Doug Smith holding signs.
> > >
> > > "Simon Lopez, left, and Hiliaro Islas try to collect signatures this week
> > > in Phoenix in an effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The
> > > recall effort failed Thursday. "
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-arpaio-recall-fails-20130530,0,7548060.story
> >
> > "Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa
> > County�s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on
> > illegal immigration . . "
> >
> > What's so surprising that a group whose Constitutional civil rights are
> > being violated would be exactly the ones who are protesting it? What do
> > you have against the Constitution?
>
> Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?

Eric Holder said they have the same rights as citizens.

[risky biz]

On May 31 2013 11:15 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On May 31 2013 2:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On May 31 2013 9:33 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > > Go back where you belong, fucksticks. Notice it isn't Fred Johnson and
> > > Doug Smith holding signs.
> > >
> > > "Simon Lopez, left, and Hiliaro Islas try to collect signatures this week
> > > in Phoenix in an effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The
> > > recall effort failed Thursday. "
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-arpaio-recall-fails-20130530,0,7548060.story
> >
> > "Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa
> > County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on
> > illegal immigration . . "
> >
> > What's so surprising that a group whose Constitutional civil rights are
> > being violated would be exactly the ones who are protesting it? What do
> > you have against the Constitution?
>
> Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?

As has already been pointed out - - non-citizens are (de jure) afforded
the same rights as non-citizens. The Founders considered our
Constitutional rights a minimum right of every human being. The whole
undercurrent of our revolution was a universalist perspective (see Thomas
Paine: 'The Rights Of Man'; also, The Declaration of Independence). They
aren't maximalist, exclusive privileges afforded to members of a private
club.

In any case- what makes you think citizens of Mexican descent can have
their citizenship cancelled by a bunch of lame ass, Loonie Tunes, white
Arizonans who don't give a shit about or respect the Constitutional
heritage our ancestors gave their lives for?

[Hollis2]

Quite true, but if you're in the country illegally the government has the
right to deport you, which makes it a moot point.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 17:34:39 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On May 31 2013 3:08 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> All of them.
>
>Quite true,

I don't think so...

[Bea Foroni]

Not moot. Sheriff Joe or any other Storm Trooper can't just "tag" someone and say, "You're illegal."

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

7th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And until those rights are fully exercised:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Deportation can be a long process if the accused wishes to fight it.

From FOX News

"...But those in the third category will be placed into removal "proceedings" before a federal immigration judge. That judge then has the discretion to order them deported or grant some form of relief to remain in the U.S.

"They're afforded due process," a federal immigration official said.

And that process can take a while. According to a report last fall by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, it took an average of 280 days for the immigration courts to act on cases in fiscal 2010, the last year for which data was available."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/21/feds-announce-mass-arrest-illegal-immigrants/#ixzz2UvcDxHkX

[Travel A]

Good, that stuffs it back into that left-wing activist judge's face.

What do these commies have against the Constitution? It's againt
Communism.

[risky biz]

That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse everyone who is a certain
race of being illegal. You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to not
recognize that.

[Travel A]

"Quite true, but if you're in the country illegally the government has
the right to deport you, which makes it a moot point."

Risky Biz:

That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse everyone who is a
certain race of being illegal. You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to
not recognize that.

I wrote:
You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to try and get away with saying
that Arpaio accuses everyone who is a certain race of being illegal.

Prove that Arpaio accuses everyone who's Mexican of being an illegal.

[VegasJerry]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:

.> JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an

> American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
> the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
> What a moron!!!

Dave the Clueless makes up a position for me by renaming me; then makes up a position about what he thinks I'm thinking about someone I don't know; then he argues the name he made up and argues against what he thinks I think. Then this moron calls me a moron. Clueless can't really embarrass himself any better than this. This wins; even over the fact this revelation also embarrasses him. What a three-time loser.

[Hollis2]

I beg to differ. All US citizens and all foreigners who are here legally
are afforded full constitutional rights.

Obviously, someone who is here illegally can be deported which makes the
constitutional issue moot. However, there is due process associated with
deportation. The person has a chance to prove that they are here legally
and may apply for political asylum and the like.

Finally, if the government decides not to deport an illegal alien, then
they are afforded all the rights of a citizen. For example, if an illegal
alien commits a crime and the government chooses to prosecute rather than
deport him, he gets all the rights of a citizen.

[Hollis2]

First of all, Hispanics are an ethnic group not a race. I believe what
the court ruled was that the police were profiling Hispanics to be stopped
to check their immigration status based on nothing else other than that
they were Hispanic.

Of course, the likelihood of finding an illegal immigrant in Arizona that
is non-Hispanic is pretty slim.

In any case, this is a lower court ruling which doesn't mean very much.
I'm sure that Sheriff Joe will carry on as usual.

[Bill Vanek]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:41:59 -0700, "Hollis2"

It's clear that non-citizens do not have *all* of the constitutional
rights of citizens, under all circumstances. It's a discussion better
left to lawyers, but it's just a fact. It's possible they do in
criminal proceedings, but I'm not even sure of that.

[Clave]

"Bill Vanek" <bilv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:2sukq8lmenj9r91r6...@4ax.com...

<...>

> It's clear that non-citizens do not have *all* of the constitutional
> rights of citizens, under all circumstances. It's a discussion better
> left to lawyers, but it's just a fact. It's possible they do in
> criminal proceedings, but I'm not even sure of that.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment refers to both "citizen" and "person", but
uses "person" when referring to legal protections, so it seems clear to me
that the intent was that due process and equal protection aren't just
reserved for citizens.

Jim

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

Jerry, your trolling is getting less and less creative.

Is your head sore being shoved up your ass so much?

[risky biz]

On Jun 1 2013 12:53 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> On May 31 2013 11:29 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On May 31 2013 5:34 PM, Hollis2 wrote:
> >
> > > On May 31 2013 3:08 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, May 31, 2013 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > All of them.
> > >
> > > Quite true, but if you're in the country illegally the government has the
> > > right to deport you, which makes it a moot point.
> >
> > That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse everyone who is a certain
> > race of being illegal. You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to not
> > recognize that.
>
>
> First of all, Hispanics are an ethnic group not a race.

That sentence might be relevant if I had used the word "hispanic" but,
then, I didn't, did I?

> I believe what
> the court ruled was that the police were profiling Hispanics to be stopped
> to check their immigration status based on nothing else other than that
> they were Hispanic.

OK. So you figured out the subject under discussion.

> Of course, the likelihood of finding an illegal immigrant in Arizona that
> is non-Hispanic is pretty slim.

Even if true does that "of course" give the government the right to
violate the privacy of an entire racial group?

> In any case, this is a lower court ruling which doesn't mean very much.
> I'm sure that Sheriff Joe will carry on as usual.

In other words, ignoring the Constitutional rights of US Citizens is fine
with you as long as it's only certain races who are having their
Constitutional rights violated?

[Travel A]

"Quite true, but if you're in the country illegally the government has
the right to deport you, which makes it a moot point."


Risky Biz:
That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse everyone who is a
certain race of being illegal. You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to
not recognize that.

I wrote:
You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to try and get away with saying

that Arpaio accuses everyone who is of a certain race of being illegal.

[Hollis2]

Actually, with a little more investigation I have to admit that you're
right. Illegal aliens never have the right to buy a gun. In fact,
neither do temporary legal aliens. So that's at least one case where
illegals do not have a constitutional right granted to citizens and
permanent legal aliens.

[Hollis2]

On Jun 2 2013 5:05 AM, risky biz wrote:

> On Jun 1 2013 12:53 PM, Hollis2 wrote:
>
> > On May 31 2013 11:29 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > On May 31 2013 5:34 PM, Hollis2 wrote:
> > >
> > > > On May 31 2013 3:08 PM, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, May 31, 2013 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Precisely what Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All of them.
> > > >
> > > > Quite true, but if you're in the country illegally the government has
the
> > > > right to deport you, which makes it a moot point.
> > >
> > > That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse everyone who is a certain
> > > race of being illegal. You have to be pretty dim or dishonest to not
> > > recognize that.
> >
> >
> > First of all, Hispanics are an ethnic group not a race.
>
> That sentence might be relevant if I had used the word "hispanic" but,
> then, I didn't, did I?

When you said "everyone who is a certain race of being illegal" who were
you referring to?

> > I believe what
> > the court ruled was that the police were profiling Hispanics to be stopped
> > to check their immigration status based on nothing else other than that
> > they were Hispanic.
>
> OK. So you figured out the subject under discussion.
>
> > Of course, the likelihood of finding an illegal immigrant in Arizona that
> > is non-Hispanic is pretty slim.
>
> Even if true does that "of course" give the government the right to
> violate the privacy of an entire racial group?
>
> > In any case, this is a lower court ruling which doesn't mean very much.
> > I'm sure that Sheriff Joe will carry on as usual.
>
> In other words, ignoring the Constitutional rights of US Citizens is fine
> with you as long as it's only certain races who are having their
> Constitutional rights violated?

What race are you talking about?

[risky biz]

The race that looks like they're Mexican, dimwit. The one that you have
trouble recognizing when you want to rationalize violations of
Constitutional rights but don't expect your executors of Gestapo tactics
to have any difficulty recognizing.

[Travel A]

[Hollis2]

You've still not answered the question. What race are you talking about?
Mexicans are not a race.

[risky biz]

Do you think that more than 5% of Mexicans are the same race as John
McCain? Because if you do you're too dumb for anyone to be talking to you.

[Hollis2]

What race are Mexicans?

[risky biz]

Have you considered starting a "What race are Mexicans" thread instead of
trying to F up someone else's thread?

[Hollis2]

Perhaps you're right. I should have started a thread called, "People Who
Don't Know What the Term Race Means"

[risky biz]

You'd be the ideal person to start a thread like that. Good luck and I
hope you figure out everything that bothers you.

[Hollis2]

It's unlikely that I'll figure out everything that's bothering me, but I
appreciate the sentiment.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:27:25 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> > You've still not answered the question. What race are you talking about?
>> > Mexicans are not a race.
>>
>> Do you think that more than 5% of Mexicans are the same race as John
>> McCain? Because if you do you're too dumb for anyone to be talking to you.
>
>What race are Mexicans?

Can you be a little more obtuse? It's like you're channeling pickle.
--

Pepe Papon

[da pickle]

Now that is funny. He uses a word and refuses to say what he means and
you think that it is obtuse to question what he means.

[Hollis2]

Can you tell me what race Mexicans are?

[Pepe Papon]

Would it make a difference to if the word used was "ethnicity" instead
of "race"?
--

Pepe Papon

[Travel A]

Hollis wrote:

What race are Mexicans?

Poupon blithered:

Can you be a little more obtuse? It's like you're channeling pickle.

I wrote:
Just as we thought. Poupon can't answer the question.

[da pickle]

Yes ... the two words are not synonymous.

[Hollis2]

Yes, because that's what it is.

[FL Turbo]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:36:27 -0700, Pepe Papon
<hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:40:11 -0700, "Hollis2"
><a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 5 2013 3:43 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:27:25 -0700, "Hollis2"
>>> <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > You've still not answered the question. What race are you talking
>>about?
>>> >> > Mexicans are not a race.
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you think that more than 5% of Mexicans are the same race as John
>>> >> McCain? Because if you do you're too dumb for anyone to be talking to you.
>>> >
>>> >What race are Mexicans?
>>>
>>> Can you be a little more obtuse? It's like you're channeling pickle.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Pepe Papon
>>
>>Can you tell me what race Mexicans are?
>

I've often asked that question.

>Would it make a difference to if the word used was "ethnicity" instead
>of "race"?

Left-loons would have to think up a new word to stifle any criticism
of a minority group.
Now, the cry of Raaaacist!! is used extensively to silence any critic
of an ethnic group or policy they choose to defend.
That's even if the issue doesn't even involve race.

I suppose someone could come up with some other pejorative term to
sling, but the only one I can think of at the moment is maybe
"ethnicist!!", but it doesn't just have the impact of the old
favorite, Raaaacist!!

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:01:38 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> >> Can you be a little more obtuse? It's like you're channeling pickle.
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Pepe Papon
>> >
>> >Can you tell me what race Mexicans are?
>>
>> Would it make a difference to if the word used was "ethnicity" instead
>> of "race"?
>> --
>>
>> Pepe Papon
>
>Yes, because that's what it is.

Good. We may be getting somewhere. Now, let's go back to risky's
original statement, "That's true but it isn't a moot point to accuse

everyone who is a certain race of being illegal. "

Substitute "ethnicity" for "race", and you may note that the substance
of what he said doesn't change at all. Your jumping on him over the
use of the word was a diversion.
--

Pepe Papon

[Travel A]

Yup, yup. Poupon still can't answer the question.

[Hollis2]

The original discussion was if illegal aliens have constitutional rights.
I simply pointed out that the government has the right to deport them
which makes it a moot point. What risky said wasn't relevant to what I
was talking about. I have no idea if Sheriff Joe's men are stopping
people based on ethnicity to see if there illegal or not.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:13:39 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>The original discussion was if illegal aliens have constitutional rights.
>I simply pointed out that the government has the right to deport them
>which makes it a moot point.

No, it does not. The government has a right to incarcerate
criminals, but it must respect their Constitutional rights in the
process of doing so. If illegals have Constitutional rights, then
the government can't deport them without due process. They also
can't search and/or arrest them without probable cause.
--

Pepe Papon