Any noticable effects of 1804 yet?

[Neptune]

Of course they can, but if you get caught in a DUI, they can't ask you if were driving drunk three months ago, and if you say "yes", charge you with that one too.  

Self-incrimination, that's an interesting challenge.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Iplaw is the one who made this into a Mexican argument. I mentioned the policy and he started out by adding his views about Jose.

You are correct. The anti-illegal immigration feelings are not just anti-Mexican feelings, but be honest...no one brings up any other culture in this topic than Mexicans.

Really RM?  I'm the one who made this into a "Mexican" argument.

Who was it that said this:

"Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order."

Care to take that foot back out of your mouth?

[iplaw]

Steaming-Pile-of-Composting-Garbage-Michael:

quote:You are so wrapped up in your opinions and malcontent about Hispanic culture that you have missed the meaning of Christmas.

What exactly are my "opinions" about Hispanic culture?  I believe that you're the one who attempted to lecture me by saying:

The Hispanic culture traditionally has living arrangements that include other family members living in one residence.

I suppose it's okay for you to generalize about "hispanic culture" but it's not okay for me?

quote:My Christmas wish is to convince you and the Salvation Army that poor children are deserving of our help, regardless of their or their family's immigration status.

And I continue to argue that you're supporting stealing from our own poor (all from families who actually DO pay taxes) and giving to people who have no right to be here.

Protest all you want, make absurd generalizations about how few illegals live together and call people racists...it's easier than logical discourse and gives you warm fuzzies for pretending to be compassionate all the while robbing our poor American children because you want our immigration policies dismantled.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
Really RM?  I'm the one who made this into a "Mexican" argument.

Who was it that said this:

"Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order."

Care to take that foot back out of your mouth?

You are right. It was the post before me that talked about Mexicans and was not you.

[RecycleMichael]

I never called you racist. I said you missed the real meaning of Christmas.

"...stealing from our own poor?" ...robbing poor American children?"

Wow.

How is my choice of picking a different charity to contribute to for Christmas campaigns stealing?

Your rhetoric reflects some real anger.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Of course they can, but if you get caught in a DUI, they can't ask you if were driving drunk three months ago, and if you say "yes", charge you with that one too.  

Self-incrimination, that's an interesting challenge.

Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?

[iplaw]

quote:I never called you racist. I said you missed the real meaning of Christmas.

"...stealing from our own poor?" ...robbing poor American children?"

Wow.

How is my choice of picking a different charity to contribute to for Christmas campaigns stealing?

Again, you're confusing issues.  Your choice of a charity is wholely yours.  What I object to is your refusal to give to a charity because they won't waste (as I have defined the terms) resources because you feel obligated to give assistance to children who shouldn't be here to receive the assistance in the first place.

Pragmatically, for every illegal you extend assistance to, you deny it to another legal citizen. Unfortunately, resources for a charity ARE a zero-sum game, and are limited, which means that  giving to one necessarily means denying another.  I would prefer not to deny poor legal citizens.

The "right to bear Christmas presents"  is not an inalienable one.

quote:
Your rhetoric reflects some real anger.

Get over yourself. Conversing with you is sometimes frustrating because you constantly move the goalposts during a discussion and intermingle definitions, but angry...please.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?

No.  And if you were serious, or sane, you wouldn't bother asking that.

The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law.  Period.  Doesn't matter how much you hate Mexicans, doesn't matter if you think Jesus hates Mexicans, the State trumping Federal Law: that's exactly what this challenge is about.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?

No.  And if you were serious, or sane, you wouldn't bother asking that.

The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law.  Period.  Doesn't matter how much you hate Mexicans, doesn't matter if you think Jesus hates Mexicans, the State trumping Federal Law: that's exactly what this challenge is about.

Oh, excuse me, I did not realize you are a constitutional scholar. I never knew that "The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law." Also, clever use of the "change the subject" technique and resort to name-calling. I mean really, those 76% of Oklahomans who favor 1804 only do so because they hate Mexicans.  
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/11/survey-usa-of-oklahomans-on-immi.html

Idiot.

[RecycleMichael]

Iplaw...You are difficult to discuss things with because you treat many other posters with such disdain. I too am guilty of that.

I spoke of my Christmas giving. I know I should care about the needy this much all year, but I just feel stronger about helping during the holidays. Many of my family, my church and my co-workers are deeply involved in charity work for the poor year-round and I should do more. Christmas justs get to me. I am a big, tough guy most of the time, but have many Christmas helping memories that make me cry again and again.

I wrote about how I don't contribute to a charity I used to support and followed it with my decision to give during the holidays to a different group who has a very similar Christmas giving campaign for poor children.

I spoke of Christmas, you turned the argument in citizenship.

You dismissed arguments by declaring things a "Non-sequitor" or refused to answer by simply saying "poor analogy", acting as if this discussion was a courtroom.

You took my act of picking a charity because of my Christmas spirit and turned it into "stealing" and "robbing".

I just will always disagree with you on this. Everything I have ever discussed or thought about the Christmas spirit has been devoid of any discussion of proper documentation of citizenship until you. My feelings do not put the needy into various categories ranking them on where they, their parents or family were born.

I hope you get all the personal fulfillment I achieve doing what I can to help others during the Christmas season. It is probably all selfish of me to yearn for that personal warmth, but it just feels too good.

[iplaw]

[EDIT]

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Oh, excuse me, I did not realize you are a constitutional scholar. I never knew that "The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law." Also, clever use of the "change the subject" technique and resort to name-calling. I mean really, those 76% of Oklahomans who favor 1804 only do so because they hate Mexicans.  
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/11/survey-usa-of-oklahomans-on-immi.html

Idiot.

I hope your joking.  If you seriously did not know that the State can't trump Federal Law, you really need a civics lesson.

76% support a law that may be unconstitutional.  I don't care what their motives are.  That's the bottom line.   It'll be determined at a later date.

You can pass any ole law you want, doesn't mean it'll fly once it hits the courts.  And I couldn't care less about the morality or legality issues around illegal immigrants, that's your field.  I've said all along how to fix this, you guys went the opposite direction.  

If 1804 goes down in flames, does that make 76% of people in Oklahoma morons?  Just wondering.

[Neptune]

[EDIT]

[iplaw]

MichaelC:

FYI, States are allowed to promulgate laws which fall under Federal jurisdiction in many various areas: See for example Lanham Act and State Trademark law.

The training of State police to enforce immigration laws is more than likely a valid exercise of the police powers of the Executive Branch.  The only difference is that the State, as opposed to ICE is making the arrest.  The Executive can execute the laws as they see fit, whether the resources be State or Federal.

[iplaw]

[EDIT]