The census citizenship question is like voter ID

[David Hartung]

It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
undercounts.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

No, it's not, your diminutive little moron.That's just more typical
leftist bullshit. Immigrants will take part in the census.

[David Hartung]

On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
> undercounts.

Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal liens i can understand
but immigrants?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>> undercounts.
>
> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal liens

No such thing.

> i can understand but immigrants?

Because even if they are lawfully present aliens, they fear ICE aggression
- with good reason. It is a lie that the Trump regime is only trying to
get rid of unlawfully resident aliens. The Trump regime is ferociously
hostile to *all* immigrants. People who have held permanent resident alien
("green card") status for decades have been deported for long-ago minor
infractions.

The Constitution specifies that *everyone* resident in the country,
regardless of citizenship or lawful presence, is to be counted. The Trump
regime is intentionally trying to exclude some people from the count.
That's illegal.

[Tom Sr.]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> The Constitution specifies that *everyone* resident in the country,
> regardless of citizenship or lawful presence, is to be counted. The Trump
> regime is intentionally trying to exclude some people from the count.
> That's illegal.

It literally is *unconstitutional*.


. . .

[Rudy Canoza]

Because the Constitution specifies counting everyone, and because the Trump
regime is adding the citizenship question as a smokescreen for their
deliberate intention of not counting everyone, it is indeed
unconstitutional. The absurd cover story for it - that it is needed to
help with Voting Rights Act enforcement, when the Republican party
generally and the Trump regime specifically wish to gut that law - is
easily dismissed. Adding a citizenship question could conceivably have a
legitimate purpose, but in this case it does not. It is intended to
produce an undercount.

[M. A. G. A. Country]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:02:26 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
> undercounts.

This is the stupidest fucking topic ever.

[David Hartung]

On 6/15/2019 10:47 AM, JThomQ, convicted child molester, admitted:

> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:02:26 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>> undercounts.
>
>
>

> I am the stupidest fucking Usenet poster ever.
>

Tell us something we don't already know, you stupid shitbag.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:01:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<I'd_Love_to_s...@hitmale.con> wrote:

> I am the stupidest fucking Usenet poster ever.

Everyone is already aware of this, Rudy.

You're also the shortest usenet poster ever.

"Fat, short, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
-Dean Vernon Wormer:

[Rudy Canoza]

The dude is, like, six inches taller than me. He never makes fun of my
effeminate stature, but I know he's thinking about it. I'd love to
meet him at the Jolly Kone parking lot some night, get on my knees,
and service him until he gives it up in my mouth. But it would be
difficult to work that into my schedule of regulars.

So, I'll keep fantasizing that some day he'll notice me. If I could
just get him to look down.

[David Hartung]

On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>>> undercounts.
>>

>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>
> No such thing.

Actually there are, you just refuse to admit it.

>> I can understand but immigrants?

>
> Because even if they are lawfully present aliens, they fear ICE
> aggression - with good reason.  It is a lie that the Trump regime is
> only trying to get rid of unlawfully resident aliens.  The Trump regime
> is ferociously hostile to *all* immigrants.  People who have held
> permanent resident alien ("green card") status for decades have been
> deported for long-ago minor infractions.

Uh huh, you are making things up again.

> The Constitution specifies that *everyone* resident in the country,
> regardless of citizenship or lawful presence, is to be counted.  The
> Trump regime is intentionally trying to exclude some people from the
> count. That's illegal.

How, by asking if they are immigrants? Garbage.

[David Hartung]

It may be unconstitutional to base apportionment only upon these who are
citizens, but to ask citizenship status is no more unconstitutional than
any of the other questions asked.

[AlleyCat]

On 6/15/2019 11:04 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> I am the stupidest fucking Usenet poster ever.

No, you're only second stupidest, after JThomQ, the convicted child
molester. Don't be so hard on yourself, kleine klauschen.
--
We will never have a truly free society until guns are permanently banned.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by cocksucking KKK pastor repaired]

On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>>>> undercounts.
>>>
>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>
>> No such thing.
>
> Actually there are,

No. The term is a complete nonsense. Grammatically, "illegal" is an
adjective that modifies the noun, "aliens", that follows it. But a
*person* can never be "illegal," so the term is nonsense - complete bullshit.

>>> I can understand but immigrants?
>>
>> Because even if they are lawfully present aliens, they fear ICE
>> aggression - with good reason.  It is a lie that the Trump regime is only
>> trying to get rid of unlawfully resident aliens.  The Trump regime is
>> ferociously hostile to *all* immigrants.  People who have held permanent
>> resident alien ("green card") status for decades have been deported for
>> long-ago minor infractions.
>
> Uh huh, you are making things up again.

I'm not.

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/are-green-card-holders-now-at-greater-risk-of-being-deported-for-minor-drug-offenses/

As always, you lie.

>
>> The Constitution specifies that *everyone* resident in the country,
>> regardless of citizenship or lawful presence, is to be counted.  The
>> Trump regime is intentionally trying to exclude some people from the
>> count. That's illegal.
>
> How, by asking if they are immigrants?

Yes, because the Trump regime *knows* - and is *counting on* - that many
immigrants will not participate due to the question, given their
well-founded fear of Trump regime anti-immigrant hostility. That's the
reason for the question. The laughably bullshit rationale for it - that it
is needed for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, which the Trump regime
wants to ditch anyway - doesn't fool anyone. The purpose of the question
is to get immigrants not to respond to the census questionnaire, leading to
funding cuts and loss of house seats for immigrant-heavy states like
California and New York.

The Trump regime could not possibly be more transparent. The bullshit
Voting Rights Act rationale is supposed to be some kind of smokescreen for
what they're really up to, but the smoke is barely that of one extinguished
match.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/15/2019 11:10 AM, kleine klauschen ham-handedly forged:

> The dude is, like, six inches taller than me.

kleine klauschen looks up to chihuahuas.

[Rudy Canoza]

Thwarting the census mandate in the Constitution - to count *everyone* - is
unconstitutional. The citizenship question is deliberately intended to
yield an undercount.

[M. A. G. A. Country]

Listen to you Alley, you should be ashamed of yourself blowing black guys without protection. That's really stupid

[Steve Canyon]

On 6/15/2019 12:10 PM, M. A. G. A. Country wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:48:58 PM UTC-4, AlleyCat wrote:
>> On 6/15/2019 11:04 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> I am the stupidest fucking Usenet poster ever.
>>
>> No, you're only second stupidest, after JThomQ, the convicted child
>> molester. Don't be so hard on yourself, kleine klauschen.
>> --
>> We will never have a truly free society until guns are permanently banned.
>
>

> I blowing black guys without protection.

That's really stupid, JThomQ, you stupid cocksucker (QED)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:48:56 -0700, Rudy impotently whined:

>On 6/15/2019 11:04 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> I am the stupidest fucking Usenet poster ever.
>

>No, I'm only second stupidest, after JThomQ, the convicted child
>molester. Don't be so hard on me.


Don't know who that is, so you're still in first place, Rudy!

LOL

[Just Wondering]

Bullshit. The typical Census asks all sorts of questions, about age,
sex, employment, etc. Citizenship status is just another question,
nothing more. None of the Census questions results in an undercount.

[Just Wondering]

Please explain HOW asking citizenship status yields an undercount.

[Tom Sr.]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:28:54 PM UTC-4, Just Wondering wrote:
> Please explain HOW asking citizenship status yields an undercount.

--------
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/AAJC%20NALEO%20Debunking%20the%20Myths%20re%20Citizenship%20Question%20Final%206.6.2018.pdf

MYTH #5: It’s no big deal adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census form.

It is a big deal. The last time a citizenship question has been on a census survey sent to 100% of households was the 1950 census. The Census Bureau decided to remove the citizenship questions in 1960 in part because innovations in survey methods revealed a more accurate and less burdensome way of counting the country's non-citizen population. In the 1940s, the U.S. Census Bureau began testing techniques to improve sampling and created a different "sample questionnaire" that would go to a smaller percentage of the country — forming the basis for what would eventually be called the ACS. "By the 1950s, the Census Bureau statisticians realized they get better results from a well-designed sample than they do from a complete count like the census," said Margo Anderson, who wrote a book on the history of the census. Thus, when the decennial census came up again in 1960, the citizenship questions were no longer needed because citizenship questions were asked on the sample questionnaire.

Furthermore, when the Census Bureau was sued in 1980 [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/486/564/1753930/], the government argued at the time that "any effort to ascertain citizenship will inevitably jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count" – an argument the bureau has consistently upheld over the years. Thus, we already have access to quality data on our citizens and non-citizens alike through the ACS and this effort will simply result in less accurate data.2 [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-wants-ask-about-citizenship-census-here-s-why-u-n864246]

In fact, the Census Bureau’s own research today [https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Memo-Regarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf] found that asking questions about citizenship caused an “unprecedented groundswell in confidentiality and data-sharing concerns among immigrants or those who live with immigrants.”3 [3 https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Memo-Regarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf] In test settings from February through September 2017 [https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf], survey respondents provided incomplete or incorrect information and were visibly nervous about immigration and citizenship questions. One Census Bureau interviewer reported that one respondent got up and left her alone in his apartment when the interviewer asked citizenship-related questions. Even though census data are protected under law from such disclosure, many people were concerned that their responses would be shared or disclosed even before the citizenship question was added.
--------


. . .

[Siri Cruise]

In article <rwcNE.94203$TD1....@fx48.iad>, Just Wondering <J...@jw.com> wrote:

> Bullshit. The typical Census asks all sorts of questions, about age,
> sex, employment, etc. Citizenship status is just another question,
> nothing more. None of the Census questions results in an undercount.

Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-census-b/

Confirmed: The U.S. Census Bureau Gave Up Names of Japanese-Americans in WW II

Government documents show that the agency handed over names and addresses to the
Secret Service

Despite decades of denials, government records confirm that the U.S. Census
Bureau provided the U.S. Secret Service with names and addresses of
Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The Census Bureau surveys the population every decade with detailed
questionnaires but is barred by law from revealing data that could be linked to
specific individuals. The Second War Powers Act of 1942 temporarily repealed
that protection to assist in the roundup of Japanese-Americans for imprisonment
in internment camps in California and six other states during the war. The
Bureau previously has acknowledged that it provided neighborhood information on
Japanese-Americans for that purpose, but it has maintained that it never
provided "microdata," meaning names and specific information about them, to
other agencies.

A new study of U.S. Department of Commerce documents now shows that the Census
Bureau complied with an August 4, 1943, request by Treasury Secretary Henry
Morgenthau for the names and locations of all people of Japanese ancestry in the
Washington, D.C., area, according to historian Margo Anderson of the University
of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and statistician William Seltzer of Fordham University in
New York City. The records, however, do not indicate that the Bureau was asked
for or divulged such information for Japanese-Americans in other parts of the
country.

Anderson and Seltzer discovered in 2000 that the Census Bureau released
block-by-block data during WW II that alerted officials to neighborhoods in
California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arkansas where
Japanese-Americans were living. "We had suggestive but not very conclusive
evidence that they had also provided microdata for surveillance," Anderson says.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[milton...@gmail.com]

If the net result is to get people to not be counted in the census, it certainly is. If it's being asked by prder of an administration that is aggressively throwing brown people out of the country. that's exactly what will happen.

[Steve is offline now]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:11:06 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11:30:56 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 6/15/19 12:38 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>> >
>> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> The Constitution specifies that *everyone* resident in the country,
>> >> regardless of citizenship or lawful presence, is to be counted. The Trump
>> >> regime is intentionally trying to exclude some people from the count.
>> >> That's illegal.
>> >
>> >
>> > It literally is *unconstitutional*.
>>
>> It may be unconstitutional to base apportionment only upon these who are
>> citizens, but to ask citizenship status is no more unconstitutional than
>> any of the other questions asked.
>
>If the net result is to get people to not be counted in the census, it certainly is. If it's being asked by prder of an administration that is aggressively throwing brown people out of the country. that's exactly what will happen.

Why shouldn't we throw people out of the country if it's illegal for
them to be here?

[D-FENS]

On 6/15/19 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
> undercounts.

If the American people knew the true number of illegal invaders who are
currently in the U.S., the backlash against the traitors in Congress
would be enormous. It's better for the enemies within to keep the wool
over the eyes of Americans.

--
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life.”
— Robert Heinlein.

www.globalgulag.us

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/15/2019 1:27 PM, JF. Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy
ambulance chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

*None* of which discourage responses. A question about citizenship
does...which is, of course, the intent. Bullshit on you, Hansen, you
motherfucking polygamous cocksucker.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/15/2019 1:28 PM, F. Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy ambulance

chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

Already well explained multiple times in the thread, Hansen, you
cocksucking polygamous shit-4-braincell.

[Salty Stan]

Language!

[milton...@gmail.com]

None of those questions results in a fear that the government will round them up and throw them in jail, which is what the current regime is doing.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Asked and answered, repeatedly.

[Michael Ejercito]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:TwkNE.252401$wz.1...@fx41.iad...

Whose fault is it if people refuse to respond to a question about
citizenship?


Michael


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[David Hartung]

Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?

[milton...@gmail.com]

Ask the legal immigrant Dreamers who have been sent back, even though their immigration status is legal. Trump has been sending back all kinds of brown people, including many with Green Cards.

[milton...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:44:35 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:

I forgot to include this:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article214844345.html

https://patch.com/maryland/gaithersburg/husband-raises-money-wife-get-green-card-finish-school

[David Hartung]

"Dreamers" are not legal immigrants, they are illegals who were given
amnesty by the Obama administration. Is this a sample of your "research
skills"?

[David Hartung]

[...]
New guidelines implemented last week by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services say that immigrants who abuse “any program related to the
reception of public benefits” will be summoned to appear before an
immigration court.
[...]

The problem?


> https://patch.com/maryland/gaithersburg/husband-raises-money-wife-get-green-card-finish-school

You simply do not get it. The lady was a child when her parents brought
her to this country, but she still entered illegally. DACA was an
attempt to help them, and I believe that such help is warranted, but by
no means is she a legal immigrant.

Your "research skills" seem to be seriously lacking.

[Rudy Canoza]

I've instructed you about that already. The Trump regime is aggressively
trying to deport legal immigrants. Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he
shows it all the time. I've proved it.

[Rudy Canoza]

Temporarily, they are. So were the green-card holders who have been deported.

The Trump regime is hostile to *all* immigrants, not merely those who are
undocumented.

[Rudy Canoza]

The allegations of "abuse" are fabricated.

[Salty Stan]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:03:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:

ss

> >
> > Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?
>
> I've instructed you about that already. The Trump regime is aggressively
> trying to deport legal immigrants.

er...how's that again?

> Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he
> shows it all the time. I've proved it.

That is quite a claim. How exactly did you prove this?

[milton...@gmail.com]

Not all. Just the brown ones.

He does nothing about the undocumented European immigrants that make up more than 40 percent of the total.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/16/2019 8:27 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:03:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> ss
>
>>>
>>> Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?
>>
>> I've instructed you about that already. The Trump regime is aggressively
>> trying to deport legal immigrants.
>
> er...how's that again?

Explained.

>> Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he
>> shows it all the time. I've proved it.
>
> That is quite a claim. How exactly did you prove this?

With citations, of course. Being stupid and inattentive, you missed them.

[Rudy Canoza]

I'd like to see a citation for that. That sounds far too high to me.

[Rudy Canoza]

This site says 5% of "undocumented" migrants in the USA are from Europe,
Canada and "Oceania".
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US

That's a pretty far cry from 40% being from Europe.

[Steve is offline now]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:13:57 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

<LOL> With green cards? Maybe a few criminals...

[Steve is offline now]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:41:25 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

What? <LOL> Shook believes that 40% of the illegals are European?

--
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing
out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
--Milt.Shook.. 08 May 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com

[David Hartung]

While people from Mexico and Central America comprise 67% of the illegal
alien population.

[Salty Stan]

Sorry, only real citations count, not your imagination.

[David Hartung]

For those who care, it seems that the largest group of legal immigrants
comes from Mexico. Put another way, to automatically assume that a
Mexican, or Hispanic person is here illegally, would be a mistake.

[David Hartung]

Prove it.

[David Hartung]

No, but you have given me your opinion.

[David Hartung]

Which as I recall documented the removal of those aliens who had
violated the terms of having a green card, ie they had run afoul of the
law. This is nothing new, the Federal government has been removing such
people for years. Can you prove that the Trump administration is
removing any more than either Obama or Bush?

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:KOWdnYfUqOwr6JrA...@giganews.com:

Why wasn't Trump's wife removed when she
violated the terms of HER green card?






Melania Trump modeled in US prior to getting work visa
November 4, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — Melania Trump was paid for
10 modeling jobs in the United States worth
$20,056 that occurred in the seven weeks
before she had legal permission to work in
the country, according to detailed accounting
ledgers, contracts and related documents from
20 years ago provided to The Associated Press.

The details of Mrs. Trump’s early paid modeling
work in the U.S. emerged in the final days of a
bitter presidential campaign in which her husband,
Donald Trump, has taken a hard line on immigration
laws and those who violate them. Trump has proposed
broader use of the government’s E-verify system
allowing employers to check whether job applicants
are authorized to work. He has noted that federal
law prohibits illegally paying immigrants.

https://www.apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d

[milton...@gmail.com]

Yeah, it is. I overstepped. I was quoting the number of undocumented immigrants who come here thrugh airports, which Trump basically ignores.

[David Hartung]

On 6/17/19 8:08 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:KOWdnYfUqOwr6JrA...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 6/17/19 2:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2019 8:27 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:03:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> ss
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?
>>>>>

>>>>> I've instructed you about that already.  The Trump regime is

>>>>> aggressively
>>>>> trying to deport legal immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> er...how's that again?
>>>
>>> Explained.
>>>
>>>>> Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he

>>>>> shows it all the time.  I've proved it.

>>>>
>>>> That is quite a claim. How exactly did you prove this?
>>>

>>> With citations, of course.  Being stupid and inattentive, you missed

From the same article:

[...]
A New York immigration lawyer whom Mrs. Trump asked to review her
immigration documents, Michael J. Wildes, also reviewed some of the
ledgers at AP’s request. Wildes said in a brief statement that “these
documents, which have not been verified, do not reflect our records
including corresponding passport stamps.” He did not elaborate or answer
additional questions asking for clarification. Wilde appeared to be
referring to Mrs. Trump’s arrival in the United States on Aug. 27, 1996,
one day after the ledgers list a charge for car service to pick up Mrs.
Trump from the airport.
[...]

Unverified accusations which have internal discrepancies. Sounds like
something which you would use.

Trump opponents are out to get him and will use any and all excuses to
do so. The fact that this has gone no further is a clear indication that
there is nothing there.

[Steve is offline now]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:37:43 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

A rare moment.. Shook admitting a mistake... No wait, he says was
merely overstepping...


Milt has dated people we would die to meet.....
....yet he hasn't been on a date since high school....

..but he has been in relationships with some wonderful women...
...yet he has remained outside of a relationship for most of
the last 6 years.....


"I've DATED people that you would die to meet."
--Milt.Shook... Jul 4 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives/msg/d2ff681c7865876d?hl=en&

"I have been in relationships with some wonderful women, and I haven't been
oon(sic) a "date" since high school. "
--Milt.Shook. Jul 1 1997,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.romance.chat/msg/4f3c301996aacded

"I, too, have remained outside of a relationship for most of
the last 6 years."
--Milt.Shook. May 19 1997,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.romance/msg/38d18b9a23d84a68

"I'm shy, too, obviously, or I wouldn't even look at this newsgroup"
--.Milt Shook..Feb 28 1996 in alt.support.shyness
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.shyness/msg/23782fe7330ab04a?hl=en&

[Rudy Canoza]

Given.

[Rudy Canoza]

But that's exactly what that asshole Arpaio, whom Trump corruptly pardoned,
was doing.

[Rudy Canoza]

*Another* Hartung concession of defeat.

[Rudy Canoza]

Yes - thoroughly.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/17/2019 4:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/17/19 2:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/16/2019 8:27 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:03:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> ss
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?
>>>>
>>>> I've instructed you about that already.  The Trump regime is aggressively
>>>> trying to deport legal immigrants.
>>>
>>> er...how's that again?
>>
>> Explained.
>>
>>>> Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he
>>>> shows it all the time.  I've proved it.
>>>
>>> That is quite a claim. How exactly did you prove this?
>>
>> With citations, of course.  Being stupid and inattentive, you missed them.
>
> Which as I recall

Here we go again. What you imagine you "recall" is always a figment of
your imagination.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/17/2019 6:08 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:KOWdnYfUqOwr6JrA...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 6/17/19 2:12 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2019 8:27 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 11:03:20 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/2019 5:44 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> ss
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would a legal immigrant fear to respond to such a question?
>>>>>

>>>>> I've instructed you about that already.  The Trump regime is

>>>>> aggressively
>>>>> trying to deport legal immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> er...how's that again?
>>>
>>> Explained.
>>>
>>>>> Trump hates *all* immigrants, and he

>>>>> shows it all the time.  I've proved it.

>>>>
>>>> That is quite a claim. How exactly did you prove this?
>>>

>>> With citations, of course.  Being stupid and inattentive, you missed

>>> them.
>>
>> Which as I recall documented the removal of those aliens who had
>> violated the terms of having a green card, ie they had run afoul of
>> the law. This is nothing new, the Federal government has been removing
>> such people for years.
>
>
> Why wasn't Trump's wife removed when she
> violated the terms of HER green card?

She didn't even have a green card at the time.

[Rudy Canoza]

In other words, he simply said what he was paid to say, like any other lawyer.

Worthless.

[Salty Stan]

Haven’t seen any

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/17/2019 8:47 AM, Salty Stan wrote:
> Haven’t seen any
>

It's there. You're incompetent.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Since when is being a *CITIZEN* a secret society?
--
That's Karma

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:t5mdndRVWadcAZrA...@giganews.com:

"The unverified documents which I am
not releasing prove my client is innocent"

Seriously? You believe that?

>
> Unverified accusations which have internal discrepancies. Sounds like
> something which you would use.

Good thing Trump will be holding a
press conference to defend his wife.

Any. Day. Now.




Melania Trump will address immigration controversy, Donald Trump says
Aug 9 2016

Fayetteville, North Carolina (CNN)Donald Trump
announced Tuesday evening that his wife will
hold a news conference "over the next couple of
weeks" to address reports that she violated
immigration laws when she first came to the U.S.

"They said my wife, Melania, might have come in
illegally. Can you believe that one?" Donald Trump
told his supporters Tuesday. "Let me tell you one
thing. She has got it so documented, so she's going
to have a little news conference over the next
couple of weeks."
http://tinyurl.com/hxn3okk

[Salty Stan]

Oh I found them.

They were useless, I completely debunked them.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/17/2019 6:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:53:04 AM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/17/2019 8:47 AM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> Haven’t seen any
>>>
>>
>> It's there. You're incompetent.
>
> Oh I found them.

No.

>
> They were useless,

No.

> I completely debunked them.

No.

[Salty Stan]

You're defeated, it's settled.

[Rudy Canoza]

victorious, again. It's settled. Yes.

[Salty Stan]

Thank you!

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/18/2019 8:30 AM, Salty Stan wrote:
> I suck. I also blow. I suck and blow.
>

Thank you for your candor.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/19 9:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:

> They were useless, I completely debunked them.
>

How is it that the Democrats can limit your Gun RIGHTS but NOT your
VOTER RIGHTS or RIGHT TO PRIVACY ON A PUBLIC QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT PUBLIC
INFORMATION LIKE THE FACT YOU'RE A CITIZEN and only a citizen by the
grace of government but you can own and carry a gun by the grace of our
creator....

Do Democrats understand that GUNS are a RIGHT and your CITIZENSHIP is a
status And NOT an inalienable RIGHT. Your citizenship is given to you
by GOVERNMENT and can be removed by government, your RIGHT to keep and
bear arms precedes the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and The United States
has ZERO POWER DELEGATED TO IT that will allow it to ban or limit guns.

I'll go a step further and suggest that the Constitution has been
violated by the Naturalization process and the way it has been
implemented.... The Constitution calls for Congress....

*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization* , and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

I suggest that the laws on *NATURALIZATION* are anything but *UNIFORM*


--
That's Karma

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>>>> undercounts.
>>>
>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>
>> No such thing.
>
> Actually there are,

There aren't. The term is a nonsense, grammatically and factually.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:14:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>>>>> undercounts.
>>>>
>>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>>
>>> No such thing.
>>
>> Actually there are,
>
>There aren't.

There are. Quit being so stupid, if that's even possible for you.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:14:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Then you pay for them. Let liberals set up a private fund to pay
for all fees and services of illegal immigrants. Stop all local and
federal aid.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/9/2020 11:59 AM, Mattb wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:14:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding, leading to
>>>>>> undercounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>>>
>>>> No such thing.
>>>
>>> Actually there are,
>>
>> There aren't. The term is a nonsense, grammatically and factually.
>
> Then you pay for them.

I'm not talking about anyone paying for "them." I'm instructing Hartung,
and you, that there is no such thing as "illegal aliens." There are
"undocumented immigrants," or "unlawfully present aliens," but no "illegal
aliens." The term is a nonsense.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:11:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

Sorry I do not believe in liberal PC.

[Just Wondering]

On 3/9/2020 3:12 PM, Mattb wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:11:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/9/2020 11:59 AM, Mattb wrote:

>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:14:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding,
>>>>>>>> leading to undercounts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually there are,
>>>>
>>>> There aren't. The term is a nonsense, grammatically and factually.
>>>
>>> Then you pay for them.
>>
>> I'm not talking about anyone paying for "them." I'm instructing
>> Hartung, and you, that there is no such thing as "illegal aliens."
>> There are "undocumented immigrants," or "unlawfully present aliens,"
>> but no "illegal aliens." The term is a nonsense.
>
> Sorry I do not believe in liberal PC.

Don't be sorry for being correct, just learn how to spell
liberal BS correctly. And maybe back your point up like this:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sorry-the-accurate-legal-term-illegal-alien

Sorry, but the Accurate Legal Term is 'Illegal Alien'

The College Fix is reporting that the politically correct Rutgers
University student newspaper, the Daily Targum, has fired columnist Aviv
Khavich for trying to use the term “illegal alien” in a column about
illegal immigration. After he complained to his editor that she had
changed illegal alien” to “undocumented immigrant” in a column he
submitted, he was fired.

“Undocumented immigrant” is the term created by the Left and pushed by
activist liberal organizations such as La Raza to obscure the illegal
actions and conduct of those who violate our immigration laws. Khavich
blames the editor-in-chief of the student newspaper, Dan Corey, who
claimed that “illegal” was changed to “undocumented” for “stylistic
purposes.” Corey apparently doesn’t care that the Daily Targum’s
“stylistic change” is a refusal to use accurate legal terminology, which
one would assume is the goal of all news organizations.

Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of
Texas dealt with this specific issue when he issued a preliminary
injunction on Feb. 16, 2015, against President Barack Obama’s
immigration amnesty plan. This was in U.S. v. Texas, the lawsuit filed
by 26 states to stop the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents” program announced by Obama in November 2014.
This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The justices split
four-to-four on the case, leaving the injunction in place and the
president’s plan dead for the rest of his term.

In footnote two of his Feb. 16 order, Hanen says this:

The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’
interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain
segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’
offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the
Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the
law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).

Arizona v. United States is the 2012 Supreme Court decision in which the
Court, while striking down certain portions of Arizona’s new law on
illegal aliens, upheld its most controversial provision — the
requirement that state law enforcement officials verify the immigration
status of individuals they stop, detain or arrest if they have a
“reasonable suspicion” that the person is “unlawfully present in the
United States.” The term “illegal alien” is used by the Supreme Court in
that case on multiple occasions, such as when the Court points out that
a particular amendment to federal immigration law was passed as “a
comprehensive framework for ‘combating the employment of illegal
aliens’” (emphasis added).

Apparently, using the correct legal term is not important to the
Associated Press either, which is supposed to keep us all accurately
informed of the news without any partisan bias. The AP also decided a
couple of years ago that instead of using the applicable legal
terminology, it would change its style guide to prohibit the use of
“Illegal” when talking about immigrants because the AP wants to avoid
“labeling” anyone.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The Court used the phrase "illegal alien" only twice in its opinion.
Once quoting from an ICE document, the other quoting from a prior SCOTUS
decision. The former carries no legal weight. The latter carries some,
although it is noteworthy the Court chose not to use the phrase on its
own anywhere in the decision.

Instead on multiple occasions, the Court uses the phrase "unauthorized
alien" when it newly discusses the issue. I think this, rather than
either "illegal alien" or "undocumented immigrant" is the proper phrase.

[Rudy Canoza]

facts or logic. Yes, we know.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/9/2020 2:20 PM, F. Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 3/9/2020 3:12 PM, Mattb wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:11:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2020 11:59 AM, Mattb wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 07:14:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2019 11:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/19 12:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2019 10:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/19 12:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It is intended to discourage immigrants from responding,
>>>>>>>>> leading to undercounts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would immigrants not wish to respond? Illegal aliens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually there are,
>>>>>
>>>>> There aren't.  The term is a nonsense, grammatically and factually.
>>>>
>>>>     Then you pay for them.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about anyone paying for "them."  I'm instructing
>>> Hartung, and you, that there is no such thing as "illegal aliens." There
>>> are "undocumented immigrants," or "unlawfully present aliens,"
>>> but no "illegal aliens."  The term is a nonsense.
>>
>>  Sorry I do not believe in liberal PC.
>
> Don't be sorry for being correct,

He is not correct. He is wrong, same as you.

> https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sorry-the-accurate-legal-term-illegal-alien
>
>
> Sorry, but the Accurate Legal Term is 'Illegal Alien'

No, it is wrong. It's a grammatical and logical nonsense - proved. A
person cannot be "illegal." The person's status might be, but never the
person.

[Steve ignores most fools and losers]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:34:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

"Proper" is a subjective evaluation.

[Salty Stan]

"The term is a nonsense." [sic]

>
> Sorry I do not believe in liberal PC.

What Rudy does not realize is that "illegal alien" is well-defined legal term and can be found in both federal law and in official congressional acts.

[jane....@gmail.com]

.

Yes, and it is now proper to call homeless people:

Urban outdoors men
Or, Undocumented Campers.

[Salty Stan]

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 10:32:20 AM UTC-4, jane....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 7:07:41 AM UTC-4, Steve ignores most fools and losers wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:34:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
> > wrote:

ss

> > "Proper" is a subjective evaluation.
> .
>
> Yes, and it is now proper to call homeless people:
>
> Urban outdoors men
> Or, Undocumented Campers.

:)

[Mattb]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:34:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Thing is they are not really immigrants but invaders.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:42:32 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

LOL I do not believe and will not use PC terms if I disagree with
them and you are quite powerless to enforce your bullshit.

Then entered the US illegally so many are just scum and should be
kicked out ASAP. They want to enter the USA they should do so
legally.

Congress needs to overhaul the system in increase border security and
allow for better access for qualified immigrants to enter and access
to work permits.

[Mattb]

Rudy or whatever name he is going by at the moment seem to not
realize many things.

[Rudy Canoza]

facts or logic. Yes, we already noted that.

"Illegal alien" is a nonsense. "Illegal" is an adjective that modifies the
noun immediately following. A *person* cannnot be illegal.

[Ryan Monahan]

No, it is not.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/10/2020 11:47 AM, Mattb wrote:

Yep. Nonsense a noun and, of course, it can take either a definite or
indefinite article.

Poor little uneducated Sanitary Napkin. Gak would say he was instructed in
government schools.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:05:23 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

You make about as much sense as a Islamic terror group and sharia
law. With Far left Democrats it is being politically correct and
their purity test. Both can fuck themselves I won't use PC. Your
group is basically powerless.

[Mattb]

Here you see another example of the dishonesty of the far left to
which Rudy is a prime example. That is why I reject and work against
Sanders he and Rudy both full of shit and dishonest freeloaders.

[Steve ignores most fools and losers]

Bums and hobos

[Rudy Canoza]

I make more sense than anyone else here, and more sense than anyone you've
ever known in your knuckle-dragger life.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. Once again, you can't define "left."

> to [sic] which Rudy is a prime example.

That should be *of* which, you illiterate fucking deplorable.

Of course, I'm not a leftist - far from it.

[M I Wakefield]

"Mattb" wrote in message news:1pmf6fhplnnj93tlj...@4ax.com...

> Congress needs to overhaul the system in increase border security and
> allow for better access for qualified immigrants to enter and access to
> work permits.

Border security isn't the issue; these day, visa over-stayers outnumber
border-crossers.