About Us

Jim Thompson[_3_]

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:11:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts, but reality
sets in....

http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Sanctuary-City-/6993538

...Jim Thompson

And they're (no surprise) hypocrites....

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERE...34b-CA_PC.html

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:11:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts, but reality
sets in....

http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Sanctuary-City-/6993538

...Jim Thompson

And they're (no surprise) hypocrites....

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERE...34b-CA_PC.html

...Jim Thompson

I'm not sure that statute, despite being 'still on the books', is
operational as it was part of Prop 187, which was ruled
unconstitutional by the Federal District Court and placed under
'permanent injunction'.

At least that's how some are 'reporting' it. What really happened is
the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996" ( IIRIRA) was passed (alleged Supremacy Clause conflict) and the
suit was *mediated*, so it's 'possible' that section remained after
the 'mediation' but I doubt it.

However, in investigating the IIRIRA I've come to the conclusion it's
likely (not foregone conclusion) the Court will rule the Arizona
statute unconstitutional because the IIRIRA specifically provides for
the Fed to enter into 'agreements' with state and local officials for
the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law, placing requirements
on those officials, and that will, no doubt, invoke another Supremacy
Clause argument.

In particular: "SEC. 133. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE SERVICES TO CARRY OUT
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

‘‘(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States
Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement
with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant
to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who
is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform
a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including
the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention
centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State
or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State
and local law.
‘‘(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that
an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State
performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge
of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall
contain a written certification that the officers or employees
performing the function under the agreement have received adequate
training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal
immigration laws......."

As sympathetic as I am to Arizona's problem I don't see an obvious way
around the Supremacy Clause issue, at least not when one considers how
the Court traditionally interprets it and the "Naturalization" clause.
The problem lies in this Administration and Congress's disregard for
their Constitutional duty. For example, rather than indignant
pontification Obama could have said he was directing ICE to
investigate increasing the number of cooperative agreements, and
training, with local authorities: something he could actually do
legally, and without 'taking over' half the country, but I suppose
that's not nearly so much fun as 'remaking America."

We'll just throw 'em in jail :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

And an officer is certainly not 'trained' in every nuance of criminal
law. He makes a 'reasonable' determination but not a 'final
adjudication' or else there'd be no need for courts.

One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized
to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133.

That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a
'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with
that.

Don't really care if you have problems with that or not. Arizona is
becoming the seat of rebellion...

Next issue, if you can't speak English without an accent, you can't
teach "English as a Second Language" classes. Enforcement began
today.

Coming next, "Skin a Federale for Fun Day" :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:50:50 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 19:31:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

And an officer is certainly not 'trained' in every nuance of criminal
law. He makes a 'reasonable' determination but not a 'final
adjudication' or else there'd be no need for courts.

One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized
to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133.

That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a
'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with
that.

Don't really care if you have problems with that or not. Arizona is
becoming the seat of rebellion...

I wish you luck but that part of the 'rebellion' may not go very far
if the Court strikes it down.

Your best hope is if Holder personally appoints a lawyer as numbskull
as he is to handle the case, unless it goes to a Federal Court of
numbskulls Obama appointed. In that event you're SOL no matter what
the Constitution and Law says.

Next issue, if you can't speak English without an accent, you can't
teach "English as a Second Language" classes. Enforcement began
today.

Now there's a slippery slope if ever I saw one. Next you'll be wanting
math teachers to know something of math and science teachers to know
something of science, and on and on. Where does it end?

Coming next, "Skin a Federale for Fun Day" :-)

Isn't that a Mexican holiday?

...Jim Thompson

Yep, Sicko de Mayo ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized
to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133.

That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a
'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with
that.

[snip]

(1) Repeating myself, I don't give a flying fluck that you "have
problems with that".

(2) _Read_ the law, it requires an unlawful act BEFORE interdiction.

(3) "Profiling" in traffic is impossible. Try it sometime.

(4) Presentation of a valid Driver's license (*) disallows questioning
about immigration status. (*) AZ uses hologram technology, and the
police carry a tool to verify that it's not forged.

(5) If ICE doesn't cooperate, we'll create another law, try 'em, then
hand 'em off to Arpaio for a year. They'll not come back.

(6) Illegal population is already down _significantly_ and the law
hasn't even gone into effect yet... they're fleeing north to avoid
Arizona's law. I personally know people that say their yard workers
have fled. (My yard guy is a smart middle-aged white guy with several
secretarial service and publication corporations... but likes to work
outdoors :-)

(7) Worst comes to worst, we'll bus 'em north. Will you "have
problems with that" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Joel Koltner[_2_]

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Next issue, if you can't speak English without an accent, you can't
teach "English as a Second Language" classes. Enforcement began
today.

Doesn't that leave out many would-be teachers from New York or New Jersey
then? :-)

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:05:40 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Next issue, if you can't speak English without an accent, you can't
teach "English as a Second Language" classes. Enforcement began
today.

Doesn't that leave out many would-be teachers from New York or New Jersey
then? :-)

That would be appropriate... IF it were a problem... we don't see many
New Yawker's around here :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:42:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:55:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized
to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133.

That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a
'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with
that.

[snip]

(1) Repeating myself, I don't give a flying fluck that you "have
problems with that".

I'm just discussing potential legal issues but you're beginning to
sound like Obama, who also doesn't give a flying fluck about the
Constitution and Law.

(2) _Read_ the law, it requires an unlawful act BEFORE interdiction.

The nature of the 'interdiction' has nothing to do with whether
Arizona can Constitutionally adjudicate immigration status.

(3) "Profiling" in traffic is impossible. Try it sometime.

'Profiling', or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether
Arizona can Constitutionally adjudicate immigration status.

(4) Presentation of a valid Driver's license (*) disallows questioning
about immigration status. (*) AZ uses hologram technology, and the
police carry a tool to verify that it's not forged.

The issue isn't 'when' you can 'question'; it's that Arizona has no
Constitutional authority to make the determination.

(5) If ICE doesn't cooperate, we'll create another law, try 'em, then
hand 'em off to Arpaio for a year. They'll not come back.

Strange as it may seem, Constitutional protections don't allow you to
make just any ole law you happen to feel like but, regardless, you
still have no Constitutional authority to adjudicate immigration
status. I.E. You can't send them to jail for being 'illegal' because
you have no Constitutional authority to adjudicate they're 'illegal'.

(6) Illegal population is already down _significantly_ and the law
hasn't even gone into effect yet... they're fleeing north to avoid
Arizona's law. I personally know people that say their yard workers
have fled. (My yard guy is a smart middle-aged white guy with several
secretarial service and publication corporations... but likes to work
outdoors :-)

I doubt the Court will consider "but it's working" a Constitutional
argument.

(7) Worst comes to worst, we'll bus 'em north. Will you "have
problems with that" ?:-)

Yes, because you have, again, simply missed the entire point which is
that I suspect the Court will rule Arizona has no legitimate means to
'criminalize' something it has no power to adjudicate and since you
can't legally determine immigration status, a Federal power, you have
nothing to 'convict' them of and, so, no legal grounds to "bus 'em
north."

Let me make an analogy. You may feel personally qualified to determine
the guilt or innocence of bank robbers but you are not granted the
power to do so by either the State or Federal Constitutions. And the
Court would likely not be impressed that, to skirt the lack of
Constitutional authority, you decided to simply write your own 'law',
making bank robbing also a 'Jim Thompson crime' (as Arizona did with
'illegal alien' also a 'state crime'), in an attempt to create a
Constitutionally nonexistent 'Jim Thompson jurisdiction' so you could
send out your own officers to 'question' suspects. And the arguments
you were 'good at it', that your questioning procedures were 'just and
fair', that your law is 'based on State law', that you're doing 'their
job better than they are' and that your law 'is working' would likely
not be persuasive either because the fact remains you are not granted
that power by either the State or Federal Constitutions.

Please try to remember I am not Obama, nor Holder, nor any of the
other loony tunes up there so if you want to argue with what I said
then argue with what I said and not what they said.

The Feds have seized powers which were supposed to be left to the
states.

If blow-hard Holder and crew try to stop AZ I suspect it'll simply
result in a lot of dead Mexicans. And nobody will know nuttin' ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jamie

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:53:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:11:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

San Fransicko, Californica, pontificates with boycotts, but reality
sets in....

http://www.kcbs.com/bayareanews/Sanctuary-City-/6993538

...Jim Thompson

And they're (no surprise) hypocrites....

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERE...34b-CA_PC.html

...Jim Thompson

I'm not sure that statute, despite being 'still on the books', is
operational as it was part of Prop 187, which was ruled
unconstitutional by the Federal District Court and placed under
'permanent injunction'.

At least that's how some are 'reporting' it. What really happened is
the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996" ( IIRIRA) was passed (alleged Supremacy Clause conflict) and the
suit was *mediated*, so it's 'possible' that section remained after
the 'mediation' but I doubt it.

However, in investigating the IIRIRA I've come to the conclusion it's
likely (not foregone conclusion) the Court will rule the Arizona
statute unconstitutional because the IIRIRA specifically provides for
the Fed to enter into 'agreements' with state and local officials for
the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law, placing requirements
on those officials, and that will, no doubt, invoke another Supremacy
Clause argument.

In particular: "SEC. 133. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE SERVICES TO CARRY OUT
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.

‘‘(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States
Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement
with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant
to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who
is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform
a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation,
apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including
the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention
centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State
or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State
and local law.
‘‘(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that
an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State
performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge
of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall
contain a written certification that the officers or employees
performing the function under the agreement have received adequate
training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal
immigration laws......."

As sympathetic as I am to Arizona's problem I don't see an obvious way
around the Supremacy Clause issue, at least not when one considers how
the Court traditionally interprets it and the "Naturalization" clause.
The problem lies in this Administration and Congress's disregard for
their Constitutional duty. For example, rather than indignant
pontification Obama could have said he was directing ICE to
investigate increasing the number of cooperative agreements, and
training, with local authorities: something he could actually do
legally, and without 'taking over' half the country, but I suppose
that's not nearly so much fun as 'remaking America."

We'll just throw 'em in jail :-)

You'll throw 'who' in jail for 'what'?

If you mean for 'being in the country (State) illegally' the argument
would be you have the same problem because the 'untrained and not a
party to the immigration enforcement agreement (per SEC. 133)'
officials cannot make a 'legal' determination of status so you have no
basis upon which to adjudicate a 'crime' has been committed even *if*
your making of a Federal violation also a State 'crime' would pass
Constitutional muster. I.E. You cannot 'convict' because no
State/local official/court is empowered to determine immigration
status, without which there is no State 'crime' either, and without a
conviction you cannot incarcerate.

In jail for what? Being here 'illegally'. Says who? The State Court.
Sorry, only the Federal government can adjudicate immigration status.

As for the State 'crime' I would argue, were I a Federal Attorney on
the case, it is nonsensical to 'criminalize' something you have no
power to adjudicate.

The argument would further stipulate that your only legal basis for
holding them at all is as a duly authorized, per SEC. 133, 'agent' of
the Federal government pursuant to presentation to ICE.

Ok, let's flip this to the other side now.

Arizona *does* have SEC. 133 'agreements' with the Fed, meaning they
must have some number of 'trained agents'. We could, theoretically at
least, require that any 'immigration suspect' be processed by one and
then transferred to ICE, or released as appropriate. The question
would then be if a 'non trained officer' can legally make a
'reasonable suspicion' detention (which would already be in effect if
we limited the case to already detained for a 'normal crime or cause')
prior to being processed by the 'official agent' and I'm not sure
that's terribly different than any other 'crime' in which an officer
may detain but the D.A. or a Grand Jury decides whether to indict and
prosecute, or not.

And an officer is certainly not 'trained' in every nuance of criminal
law. He makes a 'reasonable' determination but not a 'final
adjudication' or else there'd be no need for courts.

One problem I see is the State is not (explicitly anyway) authorized
to delegate powers beyond what's stated in SEC. 133.

That, btw, is what Arizona is trying to skirt by making it also a
'State crime' but, as I've already mentioned, I have problems with
that.

...Jim Thompson

I think you have problems with the whole concept.. You are
taking this too personal. Any specific reason you would like to share
with us?

Archimedes' Lever

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:43:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

for
the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law,

Does not apply, because that is not what AZ folks are doing.

In fact, AZ's detainees get turned over to them, so it is now, and
always has been the fed boys that perform the actual deportation segment
of "enforcement". Nothing has changed.

UltimatePatriot

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

In jail for what? Being here 'illegally'. Says who? The State Court.
Sorry, only the Federal government can adjudicate immigration status.

Lack of citizenship registration means that no adjudication is
required.
Got no papers, get no hearing... period. The case is closed before it
even gets opened.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:00:15 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:02:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]

If blow-hard Holder and crew try to stop AZ I suspect it'll simply
result in a lot of dead Mexicans. And nobody will know nuttin' ;-)

That's not funny.

It might be one way of getting Federal troops down there but they'd be
coming after you and not the alleged 'illegals'.

Do you think ranchers in southern Arizona are going to stand by,
defenseless, because our nebbish President will do nothing?

We're already down one rancher killed this Spring.

In the wild west (and it still is, you have no clue as to how low
populated the southern Arizona region is), things have a way of
happening sans witnesses.

I vote for catapulting the bodies back over the border ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:55:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

I suppose you can stuff the babies in a backpack so they land near the
mother.

Mothers and, for that matter, workers in general, _aren't_ the
problem.

If the US government didn't have its head up its own ass, it'd allow
migrant workers to easily get a "green card" at regular border
crossings.

Then machine-gun "mules" crossing anywhere else on the border.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:44:44 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:47:54 -0700, UltimatePatriot
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

In jail for what? Being here 'illegally'. Says who? The State Court.
Sorry, only the Federal government can adjudicate immigration status.

Lack of citizenship registration means that no adjudication is
required.
Got no papers, get no hearing... period. The case is closed before it
even gets opened.

Not true. Federal law requires a hearing before an immigration judge,
except for some who have committed "aggravated felonies:" in which
case deportation may be an 'expedited' administrative determination by
the designated authority.

We have that pesky "due process" clause in the 14'th amendment, you
know, and nothing is 'automatic'. The government must give proper
notice, allow sufficient time for the person to respond, 'prove its
case', and all can be appealed (but with severe time limits on
"aggravated felonies" cases).

Just being here 'illegally' doesn't necessarily mean you can be
deported either because, for one, you might be able to apply for a
change of status (poof, no longer 'illegal') and there are attorneys
who make their entire living on just the anything but trivial body of
immigration law.

You really thought it was so simple as "no papers: goodbye" did ya?

It is, _if_ you catch them crossing.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:53:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]

We'll just throw 'em in jail :-)

You'll throw 'who' in jail for 'what'?

[snip]

Arpaio is just now saying on AM radio (KFYI... available via the web),
"If ICE won't take them , we'll jail them".

It's going to be fun to watch, The Nebbish versus a guy who once ran
DEA :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Joel Koltner[_2_]

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Arpaio is just now saying on AM radio (KFYI... available via the web),
"If ICE won't take them , we'll jail them".

It's going to be fun to watch, The Nebbish versus a guy who once ran
DEA :-)

He might just wait for the Arizona taxpayers to get annoyed at paying
~$50k/year to keep each one locked up? :-(

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:37:36 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Arpaio is just now saying on AM radio (KFYI... available via the web),
"If ICE won't take them , we'll jail them".

It's going to be fun to watch, The Nebbish versus a guy who once ran
DEA :-)

He might just wait for the Arizona taxpayers to get annoyed at paying
~$50k/year to keep each one locked up? :-(

In "Tent City" ?:-)

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Michael A. Terrell

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:37:36 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Arpaio is just now saying on AM radio (KFYI... available via the web),
"If ICE won't take them , we'll jail them".

It's going to be fun to watch, The Nebbish versus a guy who once ran
DEA :-)

He might just wait for the Arizona taxpayers to get annoyed at paying
~$50k/year to keep each one locked up? :-(

In "Tent City" ?:-)

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

What about the chain gangs? I'm sure there are plenty of roads and
public spaces in Arizona that need 'Manuel labor'.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Joel Koltner[_2_]

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
In "Tent City" ?:-)

Yep!

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

You've got to wonder what kind of guy seems to be more upset that they have to
wear pink underwear and eat colored bologna than they are at having their
freedom taken away in the first place. Perhaps being non-Arpaio jails are no
longer much of a detterent!

I've read a few news stories that Maricopa county does seem to have become
markedly less criminal under Joe's supervision; kudos to him.

---Joel

Michael A. Terrell

Joel Koltner wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
In "Tent City" ?:-)

Yep!

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

You've got to wonder what kind of guy seems to be more upset that they have to
wear pink underwear and eat colored bologna than they are at having their
freedom taken away in the first place. Perhaps being non-Arpaio jails are no
longer much of a detterent!

I've read a few news stories that Maricopa county does seem to have become
markedly less criminal under Joe's supervision; kudos to him.

---Joel

Now that he's got Maricopa county under control, maybe he should take
on Washington DC?

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:35:20 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
In "Tent City" ?:-)

Yep!

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

You've got to wonder what kind of guy seems to be more upset that they have to
wear pink underwear and eat colored bologna than they are at having their
freedom taken away in the first place. Perhaps being non-Arpaio jails are no
longer much of a detterent!

I've read a few news stories that Maricopa county does seem to have become
markedly less criminal under Joe's supervision; kudos to him.

---Joel

Yep. I know for a fact that undocumented Democrats are fleeing
Arizona :-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Michael A. Terrell

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:35:20 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
In "Tent City" ?:-)

Yep!

With pink underwear and yellow bologna.

You've got to wonder what kind of guy seems to be more upset that they have to
wear pink underwear and eat colored bologna than they are at having their
freedom taken away in the first place. Perhaps being non-Arpaio jails are no
longer much of a detterent!

I've read a few news stories that Maricopa county does seem to have become
markedly less criminal under Joe's supervision; kudos to him.

---Joel

Yep. I know for a fact that undocumented Democrats are fleeing
Arizona :-)

Won't Joe arrest their owners for not keeping them on a leash?

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:58:43 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 07:47:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:55:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

I suppose you can stuff the babies in a backpack so they land near the
mother.

Mothers and, for that matter, workers in general, _aren't_ the
problem.

I didn't say they were. It's you who spoke blindly about catapulting
bodies back across the border.

If the US government didn't have its head up its own ass, it'd allow
migrant workers to easily get a "green card" at regular border
crossings.

Why bother if all they have to do is claim they're a 'migrant worker'?

Then machine-gun "mules" crossing anywhere else on the border.

There wouldn't be any since the "mules" could pick up a "green card"
at any regular border crossing.

Flipper, Are you being purposefully dense? "Mules" have big-ass back
packs full, typically, of marijuana. Migrant farm workers don't.

"Mules" don't cross at regulation crossings.

I'd guess you to be some easterner who has no clue of the scale of
things here. 150 Miles straight south of my location is Mexico. In
between is pretty much nothing but open desert.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:05:48 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:56:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:53:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]

We'll just throw 'em in jail :-)

You'll throw 'who' in jail for 'what'?

[snip]

Arpaio is just now saying on AM radio (KFYI... available via the web),
"If ICE won't take them , we'll jail them".

It's going to be fun to watch, The Nebbish versus a guy who once ran
DEA :-)

...Jim Thompson

Much as I admire the guy, last I heard there was not yet an Amendment
making him a superceding replacement to the Supreme Court.

And since only the Fed can adjudicate immigration law I ask again "in
jail for 'what'?"

You're dense as a stump. Have you actually read SB1070, as amended,
or are you just pontificating, or performing "practiced ignorance"?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Archimedes' Lever

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:33:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

What about the chain gangs? I'm sure there are plenty of roads and
public spaces in Arizona that need 'Manuel labor'.

Did you spell that wrong on purpose? :-)

Michael A. Terrell

flipper wrote:

On 26 May 2010 12:02:58 GMT, John Doe wrote:

flipper flipper fish.net wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:19:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon On-My-Web-Site.com wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:00:15 -0500, flipper flipper fish.net wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:02:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon On-My-Web-Site.com wrote:

[snip]

If blow-hard Holder and crew try to stop AZ I suspect it'll simply
result in a lot of dead Mexicans. And nobody will know nuttin' ;-)

That's not funny.

It might be one way of getting Federal troops down there but they'd be
coming after you and not the alleged 'illegals'.

Do you think ranchers in southern Arizona are going to stand by,
defenseless, because our nebbish President will do nothing?

I didn't suggest anyone "stand by, defenseless'; nor ask for papers
and let the SOB kill your ass if he's a citizen either.

We're already down one rancher killed this Spring.

In the wild west (and it still is, you have no clue as to how low
populated the southern Arizona region is), things have a way of
happening sans witnesses.

I vote for catapulting the bodies back over the border ;-)

I suppose you can stuff the babies in a backpack so they land near the
mother.

Classic bleeding heart liberal.

Classic idiot.

He's a well known troll.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Archimedes' Lever

On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:16:10 -0500, flipper wrote:

There's nothing for your "law enforcement [to] prosecute" if you can't
adjudicate.

Deportation does not require a prosecution.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

A copy of an E-mail, giving a legal opinion about Arizona's
possibly-to-be law, SB1070, as amended...

"Hey [Addressee]. The easiest way to understand a statute is to
divorce yourself from personal political convictions and just go
through the statute line by line.

Subsection A of the proposed law prohibits political subdivisions of
the state from adopting policy contrary to the State's policy of both
enforcing federal immigration law and its own criminal law.

Reasonable people can disagree on what the State's policy should be
but that is why we have elections.

It is undisputed that inferior political subdivisions of the state
must abide by decisions of the superior legislative bodies. It is hard
to argue cogently that the state legislature can not propose
legislation and if passed require that it actually be enforced.

Subsection B of the proposed law creates two threshold requirements
before an immigration inquiry can be conducted by law enforcement.
First the initial contact between law enforcement and the individual
must be lawful. This does away with concerns of random roadblocks or
traffic stops. Such stops are illegal. This law has not created any
new rights in law enforcement to initiate contact with individuals.
Secondly before any inquiry is made as to an individual's immigration
status law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion to believe the
person is illegally in the United States. How can requiring law
enforcement to investigate criminality when they have a reasonable
basis to believe criminality is afoot be considered draconian or
somehow unfair. That is actually a higher standard than they have in
initiating other criminal investigations. For instance law enforcement
officers while in legal contact with an individual can ask questions
regarding drug or alcohol use on nothing better than a desire to
question an individual.

Enforcing the law is what they are paid to do. The rule of law is not
enhanced when law enforcement is given discretion to ignore the law
based solely on political considerations. Law enforcement officers are
executive branch government officials. It's a pretty scary thing in a
free society when college students are arguing that the branch of
government that enforces the laws should also be free to make them up
to suit their own political tastes.

Subsection E allows arrest of an individual when probable cause exists
to believe he has violated an immigration law. This is no different
than any other crime. Why should it be? Probable cause is defined as a
reasonable belief that a specific crime has been committed by a
specific individual. Furthermore the bill does not require arrest. It
allows it. In a statute the words "may or "shall" are very important.
The word "may" is used here. This law clearly allows officers to
choose to summons an individual to court rather than take him/her into
custody.

Being Hispanic is not probable cause to believe someone has committed
an immigration offense. Nor does the law require an individual to
prove his/her citizenship. The burden of proof is always on the state.
Any requirement to carry identification documents come from the feds.
There is absolutely nothing in this proposed law requiring anyone to
carry documentation with them. That is just silly posturing by someone
who apparently doesn't trust his rational argument to persuade and has
to rely on emotional appeals and rhetoric.

The last thing this bill does is to create some penalties under
Arizona criminal law. Have we strayed so far from federalism that we
no longer believe individual states have the right to establish their
own criminal code? By the way this was rather clever of the Arizona
lawmakers as it removes the, weak but possible, federal supremacy
challenge. I find it odd that your friend had a copy of the bill but
apparently chose to rely on, of all things, a USA Today article for
analysis of the bill. Is that the state of a college education these
days?

[Addressee] as you go through life I urge you not to use pie chart
rags as your go-to source for reliable information.

Love Dad"

===============

Of course, "Addressee" is our oldest granddaughter, graduating a
semester early, with honors, from U of A. And "Dad" is our
son-in-law, Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Yuma County, Arizona.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jamie

flipper wrote:
On 29 May 2010 15:40:15 GMT, John Doe wrote:

flipper flipper fish.net wrote:

John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote:

flipper flipper fish.net wrote:

Jim Thompson To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon

...

Waiting for Flippant to provide a link to the same argument
somewhere else in the world. Or maybe he thinks that he has a
unique argument that is somehow valid.

Already did, since you're google incompetent.

Besides, law enforcement prosecutes, it does not adjudicate.

There's nothing for your "law enforcement [to] prosecute" if you
can't adjudicate.

You have semantical problems, Flippant.

It only seems that way to the mentally incompetent.

Law enforcement prosecutes all day long without adjudicating
anything. That is why they are known as the "prosecution". The
judicial branch adjudicates, Flippant, that is why it has judges.

The police 'prosecute' that which they have reasonable cause to
believe has a chance of being favorably adjudicated. They do not
'prosecute' simply for the thrill of it or, if they do, they find
themselves the subject of disciplinary review.

And one rather serious criteria for a reasonable expectation of
favorable adjudication is the State having power to adjudicate in the
first place, which the State does not have in the case of immigration
law.

The police do not, for example and fortunately for you, 'prosecute'
for "being an Internet jackass" because the State has no power to
adjudicate such an alleged 'crime' and 'prosecuting' unconstitutional
statutes is a good way to get Federal troops visiting your locality.

Think you can now figure out the mysterious "semantical problems" of
"there's nothing for your "law enforcement [to] prosecute" if you
can't adjudicate"? The State has no power to adjudicate immigration
law so the police have nothing to 'prosecute'.

Have you actually read SB1070, as amended,

Go back and look at what happened to Prop 187. Prop 187
attempted to bar State services to 'illegals' but the court
ruled it unconstitutional and one reason is because the State
has no power to decide who's 'illegal' as that's a Federal
Power. I.E. The State has no legal basis upon which to deny
services because it has no power to 'determine immigration
status'

Which court ruled it unconstitutional? Provide a citation.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/

"LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, March 19) -- A U.S. District Court
judge has declared most of California's Proposition 187
unconstitutional.

In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to
regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's
responsibility.

The American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California chapter
was one of the five groups which sued to stop Proposition 187.
In a statement, ACLU spokesman Mark Rosenbaum said Pfaelzer
correctly denied California's attempt to regulate immigration.

So, on Flippant's side

It's not 'my side'. I explicitly said I had come to the conclusion
"THE COURT" would likely 'rule' that way because I had investigated
the past rulings of the Court.

is one liberal federal judge and the
American Civil Liberties Union.

It's a hell of a lot more than your jackass fabrications.

Governor Pete Wilson was probably
removed from office before a chance to appeal.

Wrong. The case was, by agreement, mediated.

But then, your google ineptitude limits you to fabrications.

And of course an
open border advocate California governor would not push to appeal
the liberal District Court Judge opinion.

Determining the immigration status of a person and enforcing
immigration law

The State has no power to do so.

is not "regulating immigration". The act of
regulating occurs at the border, regulating immigration is
allowing or stopping immigrants at the border.

Take it up with Webster and the judge.

You'd lose but it would be fun listening to the judge call you a
jackass.

or are you just pontificating, or performing "practiced
ignorance"?

You can try 'shooting the messenger' all you like but it won't
change the Court and all I did was tell you why I had come to
the conclusion it, at the District level at least, would
likely strike down the Arizona statute: mainly because I
investigated the IIRIRA and what happened to Prop 187.

Your idea that illegal immigrant status cannot be determined by
law enforcement is just silly, Flippant,

I didn't say "law enforcement." I said State and local police

State and local police is "law enforcement", Flippant.

The FBI will be interested to hear they are not law enforcement, not
to mention customs, the IRS, TIGTA and, our current favorite, the INS.

not a party to the IIRIRA cooperative agreement, as required by
Federal law.

Apparently Flippant is confused about an individual officer making
the determination.

Not I, the Federal government as specifically spelled out in Federal
law: the IIRIRA.

But in fact, the Arizona law and other states
laws being proposed say "The person's immigration status shall be
verified with the federal government". That is, if the individual
officer is not empowered to make that determination by himself.

Unless a party to an IIRIRA cooperative agreement the individual
officer is not empowered to do anything regarding immigration status,
and that includes 'asking'.
How about we send a few of those illegals to set up camp on your door
step, take your job away, steal your personal items, take your car out
for a drug ride and return it back to your home so you can take the
rap for it?

Oh, did I forget something, feed them while they are there and make
sure you pay all if not more, your taxes, so these people can sit back
and laugh at you and others like you as they take your rights,
jobs and belongings away from you.

You may not agree with Arizona because of special interest on your
part or maybe you're being a classical idiot..

I hope one day you suffer the same fate as others have
dealing with this problem.. Obviously you are green and appear to be a
snot nose bigot..

Its a serious problem and people like yourself are the major reason
why we have this issue in the states..

If I didn't know any better, It seems like you are trying to protect
them ? It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were some how involve with
these illegals more so than you are telling us.

Personally i'm getting tired and I am sure others are of you spitting
legal documents over this system in the fashion you are. It only shows
your bottom feeding attempt to reach out in hopes that others will
see it your way, on grounds that I can only imagine..

You are a disgrace as an American. That is, if you really are one?

People like you are one of the major reasons why these illegals have
some much grazing space. (moron)..

You are not doing to well in the popularity race.

John Doe

Jamie t wrote:

flipper wrote:

....

If I didn't know any better, It seems like you are trying to
protect them ? It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were some
how involve with these illegals more so than you are telling us.

Personally i'm getting tired and I am sure others are of you
spitting legal documents over this system

I am looking for one more... A quotation that supports Flippant's
argument that (during a lawful encounter) a local police officer
cannot suspect that someone is here in the United States illegally
and then consult with the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) about the subject. Even a reference to someone else arguing the
same point would be useful.

You are a disgrace as an American. That is, if you really are
one?

Maybe not. In my opinion, Flippant's partisanship will be proved
if he cannot produce the quotation asked for above, or if he does
not relent if unable to do so. He will probably just increase the
name-calling

People like you are one of the major reasons

Not likely a major reason for anything, really.

Apparently Flippant is just a nym-shifting troll who uses the no-
archive switch to help hide the fact.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:48 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:37:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I agree.

Interesting to note that's how I came up with an opinion about the
likelihood of the Court ruling contrary to what I had thought before
investigating it. It isn't that I 'like it' or 'happy' with illegal
immigration and the Federal government's failure to properly fulfill
it's Constitutional duties.

I agree, for both State and Federal elections.

No argument as long as we also recognize that legislation must be both
State and Federally Constitutional in order to be 'law'.

No argument (and I never once argued any 'discrimination' case) as
long as the 'law' is Constitutional and, as I've explained before, the
Court's ruling on prop 187 suggests to me they will not consider it so
because immigration law is a Federal, not State, power.

One could argue that is precisely what Arizona is attempting to do in
writing 'law' that 'ignores' (or contravenes) Federal Law because they
are fed up, pardon the pun, with the dysfunctional politics of
Washington.

The same 'scariness' applies to 'free to make up' Constitutional law.

Of course, there are people who argue the SCOTUS has been doing that
for years.

The IIRIRA specifically states 'who' is authorized to investigate
immigration status (and the 'rules') and I believe the Court will see
the Arizona statute as a conscious and deliberate attempt to
contravene those requirements which, I believe, raises a Supremacy
Clause issue.

States have never been able to write law in contradiction to
Constitutionally granted Federal powers. That is the Supremacy Clause.

As I explained before, another potential 'problem' I see with writing
a State law 'criminalizing' immigration status is that the State has
no power to determine immigration status, nor to 'interpret' Federal
Law, so even if you have reasonable cause to 'suspect' you cannot
'convict' in State court. At the very least not without the
'cooperation' of ICE (such as to 'testify' they have made a
determination) but, as a practical matter, if ICE determines they're
in the country illegally the offender will be, in theory, deported and
unable to appear for the State 'trial'. But if ICE determines they may
stay, for whatever reason, then, by golly, they're here 'legally'
regardless of State Law. ICE is 'the controlling authority'.

On the other hand, if ICE simply refuses to 'cooperate', and the State
has no power to compel, the State is stuck with either letting them go
or permanent detention of, or some other draconian act against,
'suspects' never proved 'guilty', nor 'triable', until if and when
'ICE comes to their senses'.

None of those are tenable and I suspect the (Federal) Court will frown
on 'law' that cannot be adjudicated by any agency of the government
that wrote it.

Of course, Arizona has no intent to State prosecute. That's a
manufactured 'legalism' designed to expand the officers 'authorized'
to investigate and detain for ICE, except IIRIRA Federal law does not
allow it.

I suspect the Court will also notice the 'cleverness' but it usually
frowns on clever "schemes" (as the judge called prop 187) intended to
circumvent the Constitution and Federal law, as it seems that one is
expressly designed to do.

Frankly, I'm sympathetic to, on the surface at least, the seeming
populist practicality of "if you won't do it then we will" but I don't
see any such exception mentioned in the Supremacy Clause. Which is not
to say the SCOTUS might not just 'invent' it but divesting Federal
powers has not been the general direction for well over 100 years.

Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-)

The 9th Circuit Court of Fairies will, of course, rule against
Arizona. That's a good thing... we can go straight to SCOTUS.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 09:03:32 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:37:48 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:37:50 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I agree.

Interesting to note that's how I came up with an opinion about the
likelihood of the Court ruling contrary to what I had thought before
investigating it. It isn't that I 'like it' or 'happy' with illegal
immigration and the Federal government's failure to properly fulfill
it's Constitutional duties.

I agree, for both State and Federal elections.

No argument as long as we also recognize that legislation must be both
State and Federally Constitutional in order to be 'law'.

No argument (and I never once argued any 'discrimination' case) as
long as the 'law' is Constitutional and, as I've explained before, the
Court's ruling on prop 187 suggests to me they will not consider it so
because immigration law is a Federal, not State, power.

One could argue that is precisely what Arizona is attempting to do in
writing 'law' that 'ignores' (or contravenes) Federal Law because they
are fed up, pardon the pun, with the dysfunctional politics of
Washington.

The same 'scariness' applies to 'free to make up' Constitutional law.

Of course, there are people who argue the SCOTUS has been doing that
for years.

The IIRIRA specifically states 'who' is authorized to investigate
immigration status (and the 'rules') and I believe the Court will see
the Arizona statute as a conscious and deliberate attempt to
contravene those requirements which, I believe, raises a Supremacy
Clause issue.

States have never been able to write law in contradiction to
Constitutionally granted Federal powers. That is the Supremacy Clause.

As I explained before, another potential 'problem' I see with writing
a State law 'criminalizing' immigration status is that the State has
no power to determine immigration status, nor to 'interpret' Federal
Law, so even if you have reasonable cause to 'suspect' you cannot
'convict' in State court. At the very least not without the
'cooperation' of ICE (such as to 'testify' they have made a
determination) but, as a practical matter, if ICE determines they're
in the country illegally the offender will be, in theory, deported and
unable to appear for the State 'trial'. But if ICE determines they may
stay, for whatever reason, then, by golly, they're here 'legally'
regardless of State Law. ICE is 'the controlling authority'.

On the other hand, if ICE simply refuses to 'cooperate', and the State
has no power to compel, the State is stuck with either letting them go
or permanent detention of, or some other draconian act against,
'suspects' never proved 'guilty', nor 'triable', until if and when
'ICE comes to their senses'.

None of those are tenable and I suspect the (Federal) Court will frown
on 'law' that cannot be adjudicated by any agency of the government
that wrote it.

Of course, Arizona has no intent to State prosecute. That's a
manufactured 'legalism' designed to expand the officers 'authorized'
to investigate and detain for ICE, except IIRIRA Federal law does not
allow it.

I suspect the Court will also notice the 'cleverness' but it usually
frowns on clever "schemes" (as the judge called prop 187) intended to
circumvent the Constitution and Federal law, as it seems that one is
expressly designed to do.

Frankly, I'm sympathetic to, on the surface at least, the seeming
populist practicality of "if you won't do it then we will" but I don't
see any such exception mentioned in the Supremacy Clause. Which is not
to say the SCOTUS might not just 'invent' it but divesting Federal
powers has not been the general direction for well over 100 years.

Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-)

Well, that's the great thing about the rules of rational discourse, an
argument stands or falls on it's own merits and not the alleged
credentials of the author, and, being a Texan, I'm arrogant enough to
respectfully argue with a Supreme Court Justice if I disagree.

The 9th Circuit Court of Fairies will, of course, rule against
Arizona.

Except for including my take on what their reasoning would be, that's
all I've been saying.

That's a good thing... we can go straight to SCOTUS.

A good 'glass half full' view of it. Of course, if they ruled for you
then you wouldn't need someone else to rule for you because you would
have had a ruling for you.

Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the
argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he
won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing
opinions.

...Jim Thompson

I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even
to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the
same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and
neighbors as well.

The Republican Party has already indicated that, if he'd drop his
Libertarian label, he'd be assured of a judge-ship. But he won't do
it.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

John Doe

flipper wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Glad to see you're such a legal exspurt ;-)

Well, that's the great thing about the rules of rational
discourse, an argument stands or falls on it's own merits and
not the alleged credentials of the author

You have made several unsupported claims in this thread, that you
are sympathetic, unbiased, and that you know about the law.
Nym-shifting and hiding your prior posts with the no-archive
switch suggests otherwise.

Archimedes' Lever

On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:49:29 -0500, flipper wrote:

On 30 May 2010 03:57:10 GMT, John Doe wrote:

terminated

The pussy always runs once it is proven that he is a wuss. Grow the
**** up, fliptard.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:57:19 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:20:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the
argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he
won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing
opinions.

...Jim Thompson

I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even
to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the
same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and
neighbors as well.

No problem.

I didn't mean a 'debate' though. I just wondered what he thought of
the argument.

[snip]

I guess we're going to find out.

Obama's urchins are avoiding SB1070.

Instead they're going after the Arizona law that sanction employers
for hiring illegals.

More and more we can clearly see Obama's "leanings"... wonder when
he'll declare that the People's Republic of the United States is an
Islamic Nation?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Archimedes' Lever

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:49:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

They're likely to argue that such a law has the 'effect' of making
employers 'immigration officers', which would be unconstitutional, but
that's not the case as there is no 'arrest' or other 'enforcement' by
the business against the alleged 'illegal alien' necessarily involved.

ALL US employers are REQUIRED to obtain social security information
from the perspective employee BEFORE hiring him or her for a full time
position.

Even part time, and cash pay-out labor pools have regulations they have
to follow.

Whether they do or not... well... therein lies the problem.

Not far from oil rig inspectors that take gifts to look the other way
or go have a breakfast in place of a live inspection session.

All of it erodes at America.

There are thousands of legit immigrants to this nation. ALL of those
emigrated legitimately.

We are merely not happy with the ILLEGAL EMIGRANTS.

It is VERY SIMPLE. They are NOT IMMIGRANTS unless and until they have
been ACCEPTED LEGALLY by CIVIL SOCIETY. Until then, they are EMIGRATING
into our nation, and if they are doing it ILLEGALLY, then they ARE
subject to ANY intrusion and EJECTION we wish to impose on them.

If you happen to be a hispanic ancestry citizen, (OR ANY 'FORIEGN'
appearing person), and you get too ****ing drunk, and get arrested, you
have no ****ing right to be upset because the cops want you to prove who
the **** you are. Live with it. Prove your worth and move on. Do not
sit there ****ing and moaning because you think the cop invaded your
privacy while you were out puking on the city streets one night.

They are not going to do a walk up shake down on folks, so if you are
not committing a crime, you do not need to worry.

Of course, the higher per capital stat on the fact that there are more
of you 'folks' committing crimes means that the likelihood that there
will be an active manhunt taking place for someone that looks like you or
that you look like will be high.

Too ****ing bad. Suck it up. If you are truly Amercan, then clean up
your own back yard, and YOU hispanic ****s EJECT the illegals, and stop
crying when we do it. Otherwise, it WILL continue to be the rest of US
that ejects you. You macho ****s need to grow the **** up, and face the
FACT that you are not fooling anyone with this crybaby "Oh look what they
are doing to our people..." horse****.

If we turn all the races into vertical columns, and put the rich and
'upper class' folks at the top, and scientists under them, then us
regular folk under that and the criminals and gangs under that at the
bottom.

Look carefully, and one can blame the folks at the top of any given
race for the problems those at the bottom of their column cause for
society and the harm they do against the eradication of racism
altogether.

If we force those at the tops of those columns to clean up their own
houses, then one day, we might actually be able to return to moving
toward a civil, free society. Currently, 'tain't so.

Sadly, that window of opportunity for repair is closing fast, if it has
not already closed. The cops already act like Nazis on the streets.
Folks just do not look closely enough.

Sociocentrism will be the death of intelligent, civil, free societies
of man. Dark ages are upon us. What are your kids going to do out of
school? Where are all those jobs?

The Wall St woes that we thought were over will not be a mere "double
dip"... The **** is going to start hitting the fan again. Nixon's gold
standard devaluation is going to cycle us through one of its lull
undulations. It will continue to do this for decades to come, if not
centuries.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:49:33 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:04:26 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:57:19 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:20:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:11:18 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

Btw, I wouldn't mind if you asked your son-in-law his opinion of the
argument and would be interested to hear his take on it. I suspect he
won't agree but that's the point of a discussion: to hear differing
opinions.

...Jim Thompson

I could never be the go-between. He's brilliant, fast and hard even
to take notes from. Maybe, one of these days, all will be well at the
same time , and I can put together the SED bash, with my family and
neighbors as well.

No problem.

I didn't mean a 'debate' though. I just wondered what he thought of
the argument.

[snip]

I guess we're going to find out.

Not by what you say below, we're not.

Obama's urchins are avoiding SB1070.

Instead they're going after the Arizona law that sanction employers
for hiring illegals.

Positively mind boggling. Even the liberal land 9'th Circuit upheld
that one.

Sanctioning business is an entirely different matter because
businesses are State licensed entities (clear State authority) and I
would argue that even if Federal law attempted to prohibit such
sanctions it (depending on how written) should not stand because that
power is NOT granted to the Fed. But that matter doesn't even come up
because the 1986 Federal statute makes an explicit exclusion for State
licensing (and similar) laws.

Sanctioning business for hiring 'illegal aliens' does not necessarily
require the State to 'pre-empt' Federal determination of immigrant
status. They could sanction after ICE, or authorized agents thereof,
'do their job'.

They're likely to argue that such a law has the 'effect' of making
employers 'immigration officers', which would be unconstitutional, but
that's not the case as there is no 'arrest' or other 'enforcement' by
the business against the alleged 'illegal alien' necessarily involved.

More and more we can clearly see Obama's "leanings"... wonder when
he'll declare that the People's Republic of the United States is an
Islamic Nation?

I don't see the connection.

...Jim Thompson

I was just pointing out what the Obama thugs are doing... for
really... look it up :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Archimedes' Lever

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:48:51 -0500, flipper wrote:

if that babble

Your mother was a babbler.

The word for today is Emigrant.

Jim Thompson[_3_]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:29:44 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:49:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]

I was just pointing out what the Obama thugs are doing... for
really... look it up :-(

Look up what?

[snip]

They have filed a SCOTUS action challenging Arizona's law sanctioning
those who employ illegals.

I guess they figured SB1070 had been thoroughly cleansed and
unchallengeable. Turds!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hee! Haw! Californica gets just desserts...	Jim Thompson	Electronic Schematics	4	August 28th 09 05:32 PM
Hee! Haw! Californica gets just desserts...	Jim Thompson	Electronic Schematics	0	August 28th 09 05:06 PM

Menu

About Us