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

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

...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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

"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? :-)

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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?

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.

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

"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? :-(

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

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.