Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[CommonZombie]

*raises hand*

*not mine, but a hand*

*lurch, lurch*

 

[TJHairball]

Then the state employee in question still didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

But may not have even known the Minutemen were "hired" as ranch hands. (For that matter, the Minutemen may not have before someone said "Oh, shit, we'll need a permit for this if we're not actually ranch hands." Wouldn't be the first time)

And since the full letter of the bill is on record, I'm sure you won't mind finding an objectionable clause.

Ask again next week, I don't have time to wade through Congressional BS this week.

 

[TJHairball]

And you have yet to explain to me why it is that you're more concerned with the rights of people who break the law, often with violence, than you are with armed but nonviolent American citizens. Come on, I want to know why you care more about criminals than the law-abiding.

I don't. You're projecting that onto me because you can't quite grasp it...

... supporting the rights of all includes supporting the rights of those who have broken the law. You don't forfeit your rights for committing some misdemeanor offense, or receiving welfare, or anything else that TQ doesn't like.

 

[The Question]

But may not have even known the Minutemen were "hired" as ranch hands.

But probably had the authority (directly or indirectly) to find out, and obviously didn't bother.

Ask again next week, I don't have time to wade through Congressional BS this week.

Then can I assume you won't bother mentioning nebulous "details" again until next week, as well?

 

[The Question]

I don't. You're projecting that onto me because you can't quite grasp it...

... supporting the rights of all includes supporting the rights of those who have broken the law.

Including, apparently, supporting their "right" to break the law. Whether you like it or not, whether you choose to admit it or not, you're defending a crime here.

You don't forfeit your rights for committing some misdemeanor offense, or receiving welfare, or anything else that TQ doesn't like.

No, because you can't forfeit rights you don't have to begin with.

 

[TJHairball]

But probably had the authority (directly or indirectly) to find out, and obviously didn't bother.

Who would have thought to call up the rancher leasing the land and ask if that private border patrol are, in fact, working as ranch hands?

Then can I assume you won't bother mentioning nebulous "details" again until next week, as well?

It takes a while to wade through legalese and the full implications. The ACLU has done this; I have not.

Including, apparently, supporting their "right" to break the law. Whether you like it or not, whether you choose to admit it or not, you're defending a crime here.

Am I?

Name one instance where I have suggested that the US Border Patrol is doing a satisfactory job, or endorsed illegal immigration.

Clearly the law or its enforcement needs substantial alteration... probably both. But to have private militias running around unsupervised on the border, quite possibly doing illegal things (see again the letter)? Bad idea.

No, because you can't forfeit rights you don't have to begin with.

You claim that illegal aliens have no rights.

Which is quite wrong.

 

[The Question]

Who would have thought to call up the rancher leasing the land and ask if that private border patrol are, in fact, working as ranch hands?

A conscientious and thorough state employee who thought the situation might require clarification. Obviously not an incompetent moron or a bleeding heart liar who thought he might get 15 minutes out of showing the media how much more PC than thou he was.

It takes a while to wade through legalese and the full implications. The ACLU has done this; I have not.

Apparently not, or they wouldn't have bothered to take a losing claim to court where they'd be slapped upside their collective head with it.

Am I?

Yeah, you are.

Name one instance where I have suggested that the US Border Patrol is doing a satisfactory job, or endorsed illegal immigration.

Your implication that border enforcement is bad law is a pretty strong implication of the latter.

Clearly the law or its enforcement needs substantial alteration... probably both. But to have private militias running around unsupervised on the border, quite possibly doing illegal things (see again the letter)?

You need to learn to differentiate speculation from confirmation. And the law actually doesn't need a whole lot of alteration, just effective enforcement. One of the reasons the Minutemen are doing what they're doing is to highlight the fact that current levels of enforcement are minimal and ineffective, and they've done a damned good job at it. Apprehensions have increased dramatically since they began their patrols. Not only that, they've made illegal immigration a subject of public focus, and the public has spoken up against illegal immigration by an overwhelming majority.

Bad idea.You claim that illegal aliens have no rights.

Wrong. I claim that they can't lose rights they don't have; I never specified which rights they do have.

Which is quite wrong.

What is -- my claim or your interpretation of it?

 

[TJHairball]

Apparently not, or they wouldn't have bothered to take a losing claim to court where they'd be slapped upside their collective head with it.

A claim you don't know will win or lose until you take it to court.

Your implication that border enforcement is bad law is a pretty strong implication of the latter.

Border enforcement by private individuals is illegal. See US law.

You need to learn to differentiate speculation from confirmation. And the law actually doesn't need a whole lot of alteration, just effective enforcement. One of the reasons the Minutemen are doing what they're doing is to highlight the fact that current levels of enforcement are minimal and ineffective, and they've done a damned good job at it. Apprehensions have increased dramatically since they began their patrols. Not only that, they've made illegal immigration a subject of public focus, and the public has spoken up against illegal immigration by an overwhelming majority.

"Scattered groups of counter-protestors in a few locations" is not an overwhelming majority.

Wrong. I claim that they can't lose rights they don't have; I never specified which rights they do have.

Such as due process etc etc.

And due process is exactly what's under concern with the Minuteman groups.

 

[The Question]

A claim you don't know will win or lose until you take it to court.

Bullshit. The law that allowed the Minutemen to do what they're doing was already on the books, and determining whether or not they were already following that law was possible outside a courtroom.

Border enforcement by private individuals is illegal. See US law.

Okay, let's see U.S. law. Let's start at the beginning, in fact. First, let's look at the right of habeas corpus as it may (but, in fact, does not) pertain to large-scale unauthorized penetration of our border:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Whether or not you agree that 12-20 million people constitutes an invasion, the attendant violence of the phenomenon most certainly does pose a serious threat to public safety.

Now, more specifically to the question of border enforcement by private individuals -- you are still wrong:

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/19/04

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

"Scattered groups of counter-protestors in a few locations" is not an overwhelming majority.

But this and this and this and this don't point to "scattered groups of protestors in a few locations.

Such as due process etc etc.

And due process is exactly what's under concern with the Minuteman groups.

Only if we insist it is. We could just as easily find that a penchant for criminal behavior, not least of all treason, is "under concern" with the ACLU.

 

[TJHairball]

*snip*

Militia =/= "officer specifically designated to enforce 8 USC 1324-1326 regarding illegal border crossing. See again the letter specifically delineating exactly which laws Ybarra says the Minutemen are violating.

don't point to "scattered groups of protestors in a few locations.

No, here I was speaking not of polls but of the recent massive demonstrations.

Only if we insist it is. We could just as easily find that a penchant for criminal behavior, not least of all treason, is "under concern" with the ACLU.

So now you're claiming that the ACLU is treasonous and criminal?

Puh-lease.

 

[The Question]

Militia =/= "officer specifically designated to enforce 8 USC 1324-1326 regarding illegal border crossing.

Oh, thanks for bringing that code to my attention -- we'll get back to it in a second. But for now -- there's only ever been one report of a Minuteman in any way physically arresting an illegal, and charges in that case were dropped.

See again the letter specifically delineating exactly which laws Ybarra says the Minutemen are violating.

And obviously, the courts don't agree -- since law enforcement is already ignoring the law as put forth in USC 1324-1326, that's at least fair, wouldn't you say?

So now you're claiming that the ACLU is treasonous and criminal?

Puh-lease.

Well, let's go back to USC 1324, since you were good enough to put it out there:

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

...(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

If the rogue Minuteman had placed the two illegals in his case under citizen's arrest, it could reasonably be said that he was not, in fact, transporting them in furtherance of the violation of law.

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

Business owners who hire illegals, each and every one, are guilty of this crime.

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

Every politician who has defended illegal immigration, as well as the ACLU, are guilty of this crime.

(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or...

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

The ACLU, by mischaracterizing the nature of the Minutemen and their activities, are guilty of this crime by deceptively influencing public opinion through design and premeditation.

 

[TJHairball]

Oh, thanks for bringing that code to my attention -- we'll get back to it in a second. But for now -- there's only ever been one report of a Minuteman in any way physically arresting an illegal, and charges in that case were dropped.

Again, read the letter. Ybarra describes exactly how the traditional modus operandi of the Minutemen qualifies as illegal detention.

And obviously, the courts don't agree -- since law enforcement is already ignoring the law as put forth in USC 1324-1326, that's at least fair, wouldn't you say?

Fair?

Are we living in a communist utopia now, to speak of fair as the basis of law?

I do believe this matter has not yet been brought to court. The ACLU of Arizona contends that law enforcement is failing to fulfill its duty; I'm sure that, if the evidentiary case is built (i.e., documenting the sort of thing described in the letter), then we might see the ACLU take one or more AZ LEOs to court for negligence.

Well, let's go back to USC 1324, since you were good enough to put it out there:

If the rogue Minuteman had placed the two illegals in his case under citizen's arrest, it could reasonably be said that he was not, in fact, transporting them in furtherance of the violation of law.

I.e., not violating USC 1324 in and of himself, although illegal per ARS 13-1301 and not allowed as a citizen's arrest under ARS 13-3884.

Business owners who hire illegals, each and every one, are guilty of this crime.

Business owners aware that they are hiring illegals.

Which I suspect to be most employing illegals, as many (e.g., farming & packing) employers take advantage of the fact that their workers are illegal to subject them to poor terms of employment.

Every politician who has defended illegal immigration, as well as the ACLU, are guilty of this crime.

With that broad of an interpretation, everyone contributing economically to the success of this country is in violation of the law, TQ.

That you think politicians who (for example) propose or implement amnesties should be charged with criminal activity for such is a mark of just how ludicrous your argument is. USC 1324-1326 are not intended to curb political discourse or free speech, and if usable in court for such purposes will be found (justifiably) unconstitutional.

The ACLU, by mischaracterizing the nature of the Minutemen and their activities, are guilty of this crime by deceptively influencing public opinion through design and premeditation.

And just how has the ACLU mischaracterized the Minutemen?

By setting forth the case that their activities are illegal? By suggesting that observers are a good idea? By expressing doubts about the Minutemen's motives?

Not only is your interpretation hopelessly contrived, it's based on a base falsehood.

 

[The Question]

Again, read the letter. Ybarra describes exactly how the traditional modus operandi of the Minutemen qualifies as illegal detention.

Through no small exercise of semantic contortionism, no less. I'm guessing he dictated that letter with one hand firmly out of sight under his desk. In any case, it remains a fact that, even if the law is being less than stringently enforced against the Minutemen, were the law being enforced against illegals, the Minutemen would have no excuse whatsoever to be out there, and the ACLU is focusing only on Americans who want the law upheld, ignoring those who break it -- even "authority figures" such as politicians and business owners who facilitate illegal immigration. They're coming down exclusively on only one side of the issue, and it's the side that hurts American workers and the American economy.

Fair?

Are we living in a communist utopia now, to speak of fair as the basis of law?

Aren't we? The ACLU seems to think so. What's good for the goose, after all...

I do believe this matter has not yet been brought to court. The ACLU of Arizona contends that law enforcement is failing to fulfill its duty.

Oh, it is. And its failure is what's prompted the existence of groups like the Minutemen. Oh, wait, the ACLU doesn't care about the enforcement of laws that defend American interests, only laws that prevent Americans from defending them.

I'm sure that, if the evidentiary case is built (i.e., documenting the sort of thing described in the letter), then we might see the ACLU take one or more AZ LEOs to court for negligence.

Why wait for evidence? They didn't with the permit question.

I.e., not violating USC 1324 in and of himself, although illegal per ARS 13-1301 and not allowed as a citizen's arrest under ARS 13-3884.

If it had been illegal per ARS 13-1301, I find it hard to believe the charges against him would have been dropped...

Business owners aware that they are hiring illegals.

Let's review this:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

It is their legal responsibility to be aware of the legal status of their employees.

Which I suspect to be most employing illegals, as many (e.g., farming & packing) employers take advantage of the fact that their workers are illegal to subject them to poor terms of employment.With that broad of an interpretation, everyone contributing economically to the success of this country is in violation of the law, TQ.

Not everyone. And even if it were a case of "everyone", how does depressing the level of currency circulation in a local economy by paying less in earned wages help that economy?

That you think politicians who (for example) propose or implement amnesties should be charged with criminal activity for such is a mark of just how ludicrous your argument is.

Hey, the law is right there, boyo. You don't like it, but that don't change it. Talking amnesty creates a perception that the crime of illegal immigration will be rewarded, which causes the level of that crime to increase, and that's a proven fact, from pre- and post-1986 amnesty right up through to the past month or so.

USC 1324-1326 are not intended to curb political discourse or free speech, and if usable in court for such purposes will be found (justifiably) unconstitutional.

There are already laws that curb free speech, in the interest of public safety, and 1324-1326 can be reasonably concluded to bar promises of amnesty for exactly the same reason.

And just how has the ACLU mischaracterized the Minutemen?

By setting forth the case that their activities are illegal?

Yes, because so far that hasn't been decided by a court of law. So for the ACLU to put that out as a statement of fact is a mischaracterization.

By suggesting that observers are a good idea?

Since they're not "observing" anyone else, yes. It implies a special situation in which they feel that the Minutemen are inherently prone to criminal activity.

By expressing doubts about the Minutemen's motives?

They've gone beyond "expressing doubts about the Minutmen's motives." Ybarra's letter explicitly ascribes motives to them.

Not only is your interpretation hopelessly contrived, it's based on a base falsehood.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

 

[TJHairball]

Through no small exercise of semantic contortionism, no less. I'm guessing he dictated that letter with one hand firmly out of sight under his desk.

If he knows his precedents that well, you should be scared of what may happen if the ACLU does manage to find the context to bring Arizona into court over this.

In any case, it remains a fact that, even if the law is being less than stringently enforced against the Minutemen, were the law being enforced against illegals, the Minutemen would have no excuse whatsoever to be out there, and the ACLU is focusing only on Americans who want the law upheld, ignoring those who break it -- even "authority figures" such as politicians and business owners who facilitate illegal immigration. They're coming down exclusively on only one side of the issue, and it's the side that hurts American workers and the American economy.

There's a difference between failing to completely patrol (you can find the excuse "we don't have enough funding," or "we don't have enough manpower," etc etc) and negligent failure to enforce the law (we know you - specifically, yes, you with the name that we know, location we know, and contact information that we can use to get ahold of you - but we're not going to do a thing.)

One's a lot easier to prosecute than the other.

Aren't we? The ACLU seems to think so. What's good for the goose, after all...

The ACLU is quite familiar with the fact that we're not living in a utopia of any kind.

Oh, it is. And its failure is what's prompted the existence of groups like the Minutemen. Oh, wait, the ACLU doesn't care about the enforcement of laws that defend American interests, only laws that prevent Americans from defending them.

... and again, you project motivations on the ACLU that don't exist. The ACLU strongly disagrees with you about what is in the American interest. Namely civil rights.

Why wait for evidence? They didn't with the permit question.

The permit "question" was a question of which desk jockeys were doing what. All the evidence easily available to the courts with a subpeana or two at most.

In order to put together the case Ybarra describes and bring the Minutemen to court about it, the ACLU needs a lot of very specific hard evidence that's hard to provide.

If it had been illegal per ARS 13-1301, I find it hard to believe the charges against him would have been dropped...

...unless the evidence was hard to find, or the DA made a deal, or... etc etc.

Let's review this:

It is their legal responsibility to be aware of the legal status of their employees.

And they can be fooled. Sometimes quite easily.

Not everyone. And even if it were a case of "everyone", how does depressing the level of currency circulation in a local economy by paying less in earned wages help that economy?

You don't understand. America being prosperous encourages illegal immigrants to come here. Ergo, anybody who aids America in becoming prosperous is violating the law...

...according to your overbroad interpretation.

Hey, the law is right there, boyo. You don't like it, but that don't change it. Talking amnesty creates a perception that the crime of illegal immigration will be rewarded, which causes the level of that crime to increase, and that's a proven fact, from pre- and post-1986 amnesty right up through to the past month or so.

Perhaps you don't understand...

...Congress does not have the authority to ban political discourse. The law is not intended to, and if ever enforced on your overly broad interpretation, will fall in court in a hurry.

There are already laws that curb free speech, in the interest of public safety, and 1324-1326 can be reasonably concluded to bar promises of amnesty for exactly the same reason.

I.e., bar political discourse, prevent Congress from making laws, prevent Congress from exercising their authority to revoke or revise 1324-1326, etc - i.e., an unconstitutionally broad interpretation.

Yes, because so far that hasn't been decided by a court of law. So for the ACLU to put that out as a statement of fact is a mischaracterization.

No, it's simply a claim. A case in the making. The only room for doubt is within the argument of precedent and interpretation of the law; you have offered no question that the actual characterization of the Minutemen's behavior is inaccurate.

Since they're not "observing" anyone else, yes. It implies a special situation in which they feel that the Minutemen are inherently prone to criminal activity.

Actually, they are observing quite a number of border groups - not just the MCDC. And the ACLU does not only train and provide legal observers for this particular case; they have a long history of training and providing legal observers for sensitive issues in which law enforcement and public political discourse are prone to result in violence and illegal suppression of rights.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

The onus is not upon me to demonstrate that the ACLU has never slandered the Minutemen publicly. The onus is upon you to show that the ACLU is demonstrably encouraging illegals to cross the border by placing legal observers upon the border.

 

[The Question]

If he knows his precedents that well, you should be scared of what may happen if the ACLU does manage to find the context to bring Arizona into court over this.

And I'll worry about the Second Coming right along with it, because they're equally likely to occur.

There's a difference between failing to completely patrol (you can find the excuse "we don't have enough funding," or "we don't have enough manpower," etc etc) and negligent failure to enforce the law (we know you - specifically, yes, you with the name that we know, location we know, and contact information that we can use to get ahold of you - but we're not going to do a thing.)

Actually, FHA/HUD, thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of businesses and the Social Security Administration are guilty of the latter, having compiled statistical data on the number of fraudulent documents provided by illegals and not taking action to remove them from the country. So is Congress, for that matter, for failing to pass effective legislation to more seriously enforce penalties against those who violate aforementioned law prohibiting the housing or employment of illegals.

The ACLU is quite familiar with the fact that we're not living in a utopia of any kind.... and again, you project motivations on the ACLU that don't exist. The ACLU strongly disagrees with you about what is in the American interest.

So a healthy economy isn't in American interests? Schools and hospitals that aren't overburdened by criminals aren't in the American interest? A reduction of the crime rate, nationwide, isn't in the American interest? Funny, I think those polls I linked to say that those things are in the interests of the American people -- and those are things the ACLU is fighting against. It is fighting against, not for, the interests of the American people.

Namely civil rights.

Not not the civil rights of Americans, not in this case. Those the ACLU doesn't give a shit about with regard to this subject.

In order to put together the case Ybarra describes and bring the Minutemen to court about it, the ACLU needs a lot of very specific hard evidence that's hard to provide...

And until the ACLU actually has that evidence, any claim of fact that the Minutemen are performing any illegal activity is a mischaracterization, if we are generous in our estimation of such a claim. If we are not, such a claim constitutes defamation.

...unless the evidence was hard to find, or the DA made a deal, or...

If the evidence was hard to find, the crime cannot be factually established and the ACLU is engaging in yet more defamation. If the DA made a deal (unlikely that he'd make one in a "vigilante's" favor, isn't it?) one would have to substantiate, at the very least, a motive for the DA to do such a thing. What possible motive could there have been?

And they can be fooled. Sometimes quite easily.

Oh, bull shit.

You don't understand. America being prosperous encourages illegal immigrants to come here. Ergo, anybody who aids America in becoming prosperous is violating the law...

BZZZZZT! WRONG! Affluence of the victim establishes motive, but not opportunity. Both motive and opportunity are necessary before any sane person will attempt a crime, so unless you're indulging in racism by insinuating that Mexicans are either insane or stupid, you'd better try again.

Perhaps you don't understand...

...Congress does not have the authority to ban political discourse.

What part of, "in the interest of the public welfare" do you not understand? Did you know that it's illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That's an infringement on the First Amendment as well, on the grounds that commit such an act endangers public safety.

Illegal immigration endangers public safety. Promises of amnesty for illegals encourage illegal immigration. Therefore, promises of amnesty endanger public safety. Therefore, they can be curbed on the same grounds.

The law is not intended to, and if ever enforced on your overly broad interpretation, will fall in court in a hurry.I.e., bar political discourse, prevent Congress from making laws, prevent Congress from exercising their authority to revoke or revise 1324-1326, etc - i.e., an unconstitutionally broad interpretation.

No, it would simply bar them from endangering the public safety by announcing any such revocation before it's signed into law. And more than likely the reason it hasn't been revoked is that Congress also knows that such a revocation would not only jeopardize public safety, but jeopardize their careers.

No, it's simply a claim. A case in the making.

But until such a case has been made, it remains a mischaracterization, because it is not yet supportable by fact.

The only room for doubt is within the argument of precedent and interpretation of the law; you have offered no question that the actual characterization of the Minutemen's behavior is inaccurate.

I have, several times. Apparently, you're either too stubborn or too stupid to recognize it.

Actually, they are observing quite a number of border groups - not just the MCDC. And the ACLU does not only train and provide legal observers for this particular case; they have a long history of training and providing legal observers for sensitive issues in which law enforcement and public political discourse are prone to result in violence and illegal suppression of rights.

Yet they are still -- I find myself having to repeat this yet again -- defending only criminals, rather than defending the interests of Americans and seeking change in corrupt public offices that continue to abrogate their responsibility to the American people on this issue.

The onus is not upon me to demonstrate that the ACLU has never slandered the Minutemen publicly. The onus is upon you to show that the ACLU is demonstrably encouraging illegals to cross the border by placing legal observers upon the border.

ACLU's "Immigrants" page.

First, the ACLU refuses to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. Refusing to acknowledge criminality supports the crime.

Next, a quote:

It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.

This is a rather shockingly open advocation of violating U.S. immigration law. Don't get it, TJ? Don't worry; at this point in the conversation, I don't expect you to see what's obvious to a thinking person, so let me spell it out for you. Essentially, what they're saying is, "Well, it's illegal for you to come here -- but once you get here, they can't touch you." The implication being not, "Don't break the law," but rather, "Don't get caught."

 

[The Question]

At this point, TJ, I'd advise you to just give it up. You're simply wrong. I've demonstrated the thousand ways you're wrong, and now it's time to just tell you, plain and simple: You're wrong.

 

[The Question]

Didn't get a chance to edit in time to focus on this:

Laws that punish them (illegal immigrants) violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.

This is brand-name bullshit. The ACLU is actually seeking to establish unfair and unequal treatment in illegals' favor. No one has a "right" to break the law with impunity, and that is what ACLU wants to establish for illegals, and that is the mission in furtherance of which ACLU is placing observers on the border -- and that is why the ACLU's placement of observers on the border is only one of many actions the ACLU undertakes in support of illegal immigration.

Now.

Concede or fuck off. Your snivelling idiocy has lost its entertainment value.

 

[TJHairball]

And I'll worry about the Second Coming right along with it, because they're equally likely to occur.

You have great confidence in the MCDC preventing the ACLU from getting the evidence, then. Recall that the ACLU is never afraid to bring anything to court.

Actually, FHA/HUD, thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of businesses and the Social Security Administration are guilty of the latter, having compiled statistical data on the number of fraudulent documents provided by illegals and not taking action to remove them from the country. So is Congress, for that matter, for failing to pass effective legislation to more seriously enforce penalties against those who violate aforementioned law prohibiting the housing or employment of illegals.

Again, your interpretation goes far beyond the scope of the legal powers allocated to the Congress that signed the legislation into law. You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

So a healthy economy isn't in American interests?

It is, as is rigorously upholding civil liberties... but remember, it also encourages illegal immigrants to come, and is therefore according to you illegal.

Not not the civil rights of Americans, not in this case. Those the ACLU doesn't give a shit about with regard to this subject.

And your ludicrous slander of the ACLU continues.

Would you like to know how many times the ACLU has gone to court to protect the rights of one or more fully legally resident American citizens?

I don't, but I know it's a pretty damn big number. The ACLU handles about 6,000 court cases annually and has been working since 1920. Only a handful of cases have involved illegals.

If the evidence was hard to find

Not necessarily hard to find... difficult to document. Nothing short of video evidence combined with testimony of former Minutemen in court is likely to bring a conviction.

BZZZZZT! WRONG! Affluence of the victim establishes motive, but not opportunity. Both motive and opportunity are necessary before any sane person will attempt a crime, so unless you're indulging in racism by insinuating that Mexicans are either insane or stupid, you'd better try again.

And?

Your interpretation relies on motivating illegal immigrants being illegal in any indirect fashion. Not merely direct encouragement ("Hey, Jose, come here..."), not merely actually transporting illegals ("Jose, I'll drive you up here...") and not merely legalizing a previously illegal immigrant ("Jose, we're choosing to drop charges, you can go back to your Wal-Mart job..."), but indirectly motivating illegal immigrants.

("We just had a one-time amnesty deal. You might think you'll get one too, if you don't understand just how rare these are." "Hey, illegal aliens have rights too." "Give me your tired, your poor...")

What part of, "in the interest of the public welfare" do you not understand? Did you know that it's illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That's an infringement on the First Amendment as well, on the grounds that commit such an act endangers public safety.

The current court precedent (which falls short of what some free speech advocates say in interpreting the first amendment literally) is that speech, to be restricted, must clearly (a) be advocacy of law breaking or violence, (b) be intended to produce imminent lawless action and (c) also likely to produce imminent lawless action.

Your indirect train of motivation and encouragement fails to meet this test.

Illegal immigration endangers public safety. Promises of amnesty for illegals encourage illegal immigration. Therefore, promises of amnesty endanger public safety. Therefore, they can be curbed on the same grounds.

And see above, both about the powers of Congress and of the current test of legitimacy of legislation under the First Amendment.

TQ, even if you were to bring this matter into court somehow, you would fail to produce any convictions in any US court following the US Constitution, as precedent of Supreme Court cases interprets it. At best you could cause the immigration statutes to be effectively rewritten to not include the clauses you're trying to broaden to include everything.

 

[The Question]

You have great confidence in the MCDC preventing the ACLU from getting the evidence, then.

You're going on an assumption, and almost true to aphorism, you've made an ass out of u. Wanna know what your assumption is? That there's evidence to be had.

Recall that the ACLU is never afraid to bring anything to court.

Including claims that paint them as overaggressive and incompetent anti-American idiots.

Again, your interpretation goes far beyond the scope of the legal powers allocated to the Congress that signed the legislation into law. You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

No, I have law to stand on -- law which, incidentally, you introduced into the discussion. By any chance, do you work for the ACLU? It wouldn't surprise me.

It is, as is rigorously upholding civil liberties... but remember, it also encourages illegal immigrants to come, and is therefore according to you illegal.

Wrong, inasmuch as it encourages immigration in general. What encourages people to break the law is the expectation that they will not be punished.

And your ludicrous slander of the ACLU continues.

How is that slander? Their own actions and statements prove that with regard to this subject, specifically, the good of American citizens is not their focus.

Would you like to know how many times the ACLU has gone to court to protect the rights of one or more fully legally resident American citizens?

I don't care. That's not what they're doing in this case.

I don't, but I know it's a pretty damn big number. The ACLU handles about 6,000 court cases annually and has been working since 1920. Only a handful of cases have involved illegals.

They shouldn't be bringing any cases at all that involve illegals.

Not necessarily hard to find... difficult to document. Nothing short of video evidence combined with testimony of former Minutemen in court is likely to bring a conviction.

Then that's what's required, and until the ACLU provides it, they have no basis in fact for their characterizations of the Minutemen. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

And?

Your interpretation relies on motivating illegal immigrants being illegal in any indirect fashion. Not merely direct encouragement ("Hey, Jose, come here..."), not merely actually transporting illegals ("Jose, I'll drive you up here...") and not merely legalizing a previously illegal immigrant ("Jose, we're choosing to drop charges, you can go back to your Wal-Mart job..."), but indirectly motivating illegal immigrants.

Speculation on the part of politicians regarding amnesty, combined with a previous amnesty, are motivation. It's something that has happened and based on the previous instance and similar rhetoric now, has a better than 50/50 chance of happening again. That's motivation.

("We just had a one-time amnesty deal. You might think you'll get one too, if you don't understand just how rare these are."

"Rare" does not equal "forbidden." Why do you think illegals organized and took part in those huge demonstrations? They thought they could tip an amnesty from a probability to a definite.

"Hey, illegal aliens have rights too."

They don't have the right to break the law. Do you or do you not agree with that point?

"Give me your tired, your poor..."

Appeal to Tradition. Look it up.

The current court precedent (which falls short of what some free speech advocates say in interpreting the first amendment literally) is that speech, to be restricted, must clearly (a) be advocacy of law breaking or violence, (b) be intended to produce imminent lawless action and (c) also likely to produce imminent lawless action.

Then promising amnesty can be barred under clauses A and C, because it advocates lawbreaking, which brings attendant violence on the part of human- and drug-traffickers, and resulted, in 1986 as now, in an immediate increase in lawless actions.

Your indirect train of motivation and encouragement fails to meet this test.

History and current events disagree with you on that point.

And see above, both about the powers of Congress and of the current test of legitimacy of legislation under the First Amendment.

Neither of which is relevant, since promises of amnesty meet two of the three conditions you provided for First Amendment exemption.

TQ, even if you were to bring this matter into court somehow, you would fail to produce any convictions in any US court following the US Constitution, as precedent of Supreme Court cases interprets it. At best you could cause the immigration statutes to be effectively rewritten to not include the clauses you're trying to broaden to include everything.

Wrong. At worst, the law would continue to be ignored, but politicians' and the court's unequal enforcement of the law would result in an increased public awareness of the stark reality of the situation. At best, politicians would either reform and start adhering to their oaths of office, or find themselves out of office.

You really should have quit while you were behind. See, you don't seem to understand that I don't take positions that I'm not 100% certain are correct -- and the only way you're going to approach being correct on any point so far raised is to approach my position on it.

 

[TJHairball]

You're going on an assumption, and almost true to aphorism, you've made an ass out of u. Wanna know what your assumption is? That there's evidence to be had.

Not my assumption, TQ. Read more carefully.

However, there is verbal evidence (recorded, see news article above, although testimony that will almost certainly not be provided willingly in court) suggesting that some Minuteman groups are acting illegally. Through this, I conclude that the evidence is likely "out there," so to speak, for the ACLU to eventually prosecute Minutemen, or the state of Arizona for failing to prosecute Minutemen in the face of evidence... but that wasn't an assumption made in what is surely a simple if... then statement on my part (if the ACLU finds enough evidence, they will prosecute.)

Including claims that paint them as overaggressive and incompetent anti-American idiots.

I'm glad you agree that the ACLU isn't afraid to bring anything to court. We may now dispense with the ludicrousity that the ACLU is unlikely to bring its case to court, having gone as far as filing a publicly available letter to the local LEO. It will do so as soon as it feels it has built a sufficient case.

No, I have law to stand on -- law which, incidentally, you introduced into the discussion. By any chance, do you work for the ACLU? It wouldn't surprise me.

You have an interpretation of the law you're trying to stand on...

...which doesn't have legs to it. No, although you're working hard to convince me to.

Wrong, inasmuch as it encourages immigration in general. What encourages people to break the law is the expectation that they will not be punished.

What encourages legal immigration also encourages illegal immigration.

How is that slander? Their own actions and statements prove that with regard to this subject, specifically, the good of American citizens is not their focus.

The good of American citizens is their focus.

Moral fiber, TQ. The ACLU wants America to be good in the purest sense of the term.

I don't care. That's not what they're doing in this case.

Then back off on your ridiculous characterizations of the ACLU as a whole.

They shouldn't be bringing any cases at all that involve illegals.

Illegal aliens have rights too.

And treatment of suspected illegals is (through the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilt) procedurally equivalent to treatment of citizens and legal aliens.

Then that's what's required, and until the ACLU provides it, they have no basis in fact for their characterizations of the Minutemen. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

TQ, to see the basis for those "characterizations," you need go no further than the video talking about "Minutemen One." (Complain about them not being the MCDC, and I'll remind you - again - that the ACLU is observing all the Minuteman groups, not just the MCDC.)

Of course, that sort of thing is oral evidence, unlikely to hold much water in court with the individuals interviewed unwilling to testify to that effect in court.

Speculation on the part of politicians regarding amnesty, combined with a previous amnesty, are motivation. It's something that has happened and based on the previous instance and similar rhetoric now, has a better than 50/50 chance of happening again. That's motivation.

And generalized motivation based on hope of potential future action is not advocacy producing imminent illegality.

"Rare" does not equal "forbidden." Why do you think illegals organized and took part in those huge demonstrations? They thought they could tip an amnesty from a probability to a definite.

They don't have the right to break the law. Do you or do you not agree with that point?

They have no more right to break the law than legal immigrants or citizens. Mind you, laws can (and often do, just look at the Supreme Court's case history) violate rights.

Appeal to Tradition. Look it up.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

A grand tradition, if I say so myself.

Then promising amnesty can be barred under clauses A and C, because it advocates lawbreaking, which brings attendant violence on the part of human- and drug-traffickers, and resulted, in 1986 as now, in an immediate increase in lawless actions.

It does not advocate lawbreaking, nor does it directly produce imminent illegal activity.

In order to meet the test of restricting free speech legally, you must meet all three points above: Advocates illegal activity, is intended to produce illegal activity, and likely to imminently produce illegal activity.

At best, you have one of three, and that (intent) is questionable.

History and current events disagree with you on that point.

No, history is quite clear on what the current test is.

In order to restrict speech, you need to clearly meet the above test. Furthermore, Congress is not effectively authorized to restrict future political discourse through ordinary legislation, as it may freely rescind or alter such. Only through constitutional amendments can real structural changes about what Congress shall and shall not have the power to do be set into law.

Neither of which is relevant, since promises of amnesty meet two of the three conditions you provided for First Amendment exemption.

You need to clearly and directly meet all three. You have none.

Wrong. At worst, the law would continue to be ignored, but politicians' and the court's unequal enforcement of the law would result in an increased public awareness of the stark reality of the situation. At best, politicians would either reform and start adhering to their oaths of office, or find themselves out of office.

You really should have quit while you were behind. See, you don't seem to understand that I don't take positions that I'm not 100% certain are correct -- and the only way you're going to approach being correct on any point so far raised is to approach my position on it.

Which is why you're being so stubborn - you've thoroughly convinced yourself that you must be right.

Take the first amendment test. You misread it as being "A or B or C," when the test is "A and B and C." This produces major problems for your argument that the ACLU is violating the law.