You do realize that we already have one of the easiest naturalization processes
in the world, right? Not that that's a bad thing. I'm just saying complaining
about how hard it is to become a citizen in the USA is kinda silly.
-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Eric, Larry and Sam
While it is perfectly acceptable to attack the comments of other
posters as idiotic, but it greatly decreases the quality of the
discourse when you insist on attacking the person.
I, for one, wish you would stop with the ad hominem attacks.
On
Eric, Larry and Sam
While it is perfectly acceptable to attack the comments of other
posters as idiotic, but it greatly decreases the quality of the
discourse when you insist on attacking the person.
I, for one, wish you would stop with the ad hominem attacks.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, E
I don't have a brother.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You have the same memory problems as your brother.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> you're irish? who knew
>>
>
>
~|
Order the Ado
No Dana...he is an idiot...
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:06 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
They can't, according to the law stop you for suspicion of being illegal.
It's in the law but Eric thinks al
You have the same memory problems as your brother.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> you're irish? who knew
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael
I wasn't detained, my Irish friends were. Remember when I said that?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> no sam you.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> I get it now, so you think the Irish are a lesser class of people.
>>
They can't, according to the law stop you for suspicion of being illegal.
It's in the law but Eric thinks all cops are corrupt so no laws should
be enforced.
You just refuse to believe what's in the bill.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Neither naive nor stupid, just cannot
more info.
I doubt that a us citizen, or someone that is here legally, would fall under
that category.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:15 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Driving without a license? I think that'
officially no. The oath you swear/affirm doesn't allow such - to quote:
"that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of
whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"
And up to a few years ag
a
non-enforceable law...unless, of course, we throw out everything it means to
be American and just say fuck it and become fascist.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kris Sisk [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:43 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
>In general
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> FWIW I'm still debating whether to go for my citizenship. With the new
> fees etc the cost is painful to say the least. And I still like being
> a Canadian. When I do finally decide to become a US citizen I want to
> do it for the right
I picked that one up when I was doing that cbt training for immigration.
Some of the videos used were pretty brutal. While they were using
enforcement personnel to role play, they were also used tazers and
pepper spray. And the ones playing the perps were tazed or sprayed.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 a
t a
> driver's license facility, they can do that for immigration.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:01 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: More on AZ
>
>
> rationalize the visa system. T
you're irish? who knew
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I get it now, so you think the Irish are a lesser class of people.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
>>
>> still makes my point.
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Sam wrote:
>>>
>>> Still d
Haven't ever run into that, but I've heard that they suspicious if you
say you're American, eh?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm not sure now, but it there used to be one routine customs
> enforcement and immigration would use when you crossed the Canadian
> border.
no sam you.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I get it now, so you think the Irish are a lesser class of people.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
>>
>> still makes my point.
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Sam wrote:
>>>
>>> Still don't get i
Neither naive nor stupid, just cannot, or does not want to, understand
the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, or the
concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Too bad we can't pass a bill that calls for the questioning of any
politician who might be committing adultery bas
local immigration
office and have a new green card printed up...if they can do it at a
driver's license facility, they can do that for immigration.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:01 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
ratio
No you are just naïve...or plain stupid to think that just because the law
says it wont happen that anything will stop racial profiling.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:04 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Are you
And that is going to stop them...so I take it you are interested in that
beachfront property...
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:56 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
It's actually written in the bill that you can
o: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
> Why is it ok now to use race as a consideration, when we applaud those
>
> who fought this type of bigotry disguised as immigration controls when
>
> the immigrants (illeagal and otherwise) where Asian, Irish, Polish, or
>
> Ita
I get it now, so you think the Irish are a lesser class of people.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> still makes my point.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Still don't get it, but I know it's an insult and even though you're above
>> that.
>> We w
I'm not sure now, but it there used to be one routine customs
enforcement and immigration would use when you crossed the Canadian
border. As an initial check on your nationality, they give you a
statement to read out loud. It had a quite a few words that Canadians
pronounce very differently from A
Are you all insane? The law says you can't do that. You all know that
yet your all discussing it as if it was the law.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
>
>> Also, I don't think it is "sad" that an American citizen could be
>> asked to prove their citizenship because of their s
on the Canadian border they use speech patterns. There are other
tells. I can generally distinguish American from non even though I
don't speak the language well, but I don't consider that my business,
and that doesn't tell me who is legal, just who grew up where.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:43 P
still makes my point.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Still don't get it, but I know it's an insult and even though you're above
> that.
> We were on the Canadian side coming back to the US if that helps your insult.
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
Still don't get it, but I know it's an insult and even though you're above that.
We were on the Canadian side coming back to the US if that helps your insult.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Speed typing. I meant to say
>
> and here I thought it happened because they
> Also, I don't think it is "sad" that an American citizen could be
> asked to prove their citizenship because of their skin color, I think
> that it is a violation of the Constitution which is rather more than
> mildly offputting. If a person is standing on a street corner not
> commit a crime ot
> Why is it ok now to use race as a consideration, when we applaud those
>
> who fought this type of bigotry disguised as immigration controls when
>
> the immigrants (illeagal and otherwise) where Asian, Irish, Polish, or
>
> Italian? Or do you feel that those previous imagration waves
>
How about having a real guest worker program like they did until the
1970's but with a lot more oversight. Lets face it we need the
workers. And it would be much better if we knew who they were, and
have better oversight regarding wokrplace safety etc.. With a guest
worker program it doesn't crimi
I thought of hanging with the amigo's looking for day work not so long
ago. But I would have brought my license with me.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> it's usually a dead giveaway they are looking for work some are
> probably illegal but that's not a requirement for unempl
Now I see what you're talking about. page 86 of SB1070 states all
local law enforcement must put on white hoods and drive around at
night looking for non-white folk and interrogate them in German.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Kris Sisk wrote:
>
>>In general you are right, wanting to do som
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> Therein lies the problem. How do you spot an illegal immigrant if you take
> out the ability to use race as a consideration? I think it's sad that an
> American citizen could be asked to prove their citizenship just because their
> skin happ
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> Therein lies the problem. How do you spot an illegal immigrant if you take
> out the ability to use race as a consideration? I think it's sad that an
> American citizen could be asked to prove their citizenship just because their
> skin happ
On 5/19/2010 11:43 AM, Kris Sisk wrote:
> Therein lies the problem. How do you spot an illegal immigrant if you take
> out the ability to use race as a consideration? I think it's sad that an
> American citizen could be asked to prove their citizenship just because their
> skin happens to be br
Speed typing. I meant to say
and here I thought it happened because they only let in a better class
of people.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> And here I thought it was they only let in a better class of people.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> I w
And here I thought it was they only let in a better class of people.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I was stopped on the Canadian border and held because we had an Irish
> couple with us. We nearly missed our flight but I didn't complain and
> neither did they.
>
> As for the La
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
> What is your solution to the overwhelming illegal immigration problem?
>
Open the boarders to everyone, we have plenty of houses for sale!
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion
You would find that funny. WTF?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Lol Maureen!
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/143027215
Driving without a license? I think that's a ticket.
They don't arrest you, they put your name in the computer and your
picture pops up. If not they call immigration and they find a way to
confirm your legality.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> ever lost your wallet? If
What's the difference? Someone still needs to show papers.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Go after the employers who are hiring them.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>>
>> What is your solution to the overwhelming illegal immigration problem?
>>
>
rationalize the visa system. The whole agency in fact. It's ridiculous
for it to take years to replace a stolen green card.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Go after the employers who are hiring them.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>>
>> What is y
That is part of the new law.
What do you do about all the current illegal immigrants?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Go after the employers who are hiring them.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
> >
> > What is your solution to the overwhelming il
it's usually a dead giveaway they are looking for work some are
probably illegal but that's not a requirement for unemployment these
days.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I was stopped on the Canadian border and held because we had an Irish
> couple with us. We nearly missed
>In general you are right, wanting to do something about illegal immigration
>is not racists. That doesn't mean that the motivation by certain parties
>isn't racist...especially when you get into racial profiling like the AZ law
>does. The problem with the AZ bandaid is that it comes with a whit
It's actually written in the bill that you can't do that. DUH
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Yeah...and what is to stop it? If you think that it is going to stop racial
> profiling, I have some beachfront property there to sell you...
Yes, my experience mirrors this. And I remember hearing something
about the Prince William County law.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Only when crossing the Canadian border. I look too WASP to be
> suspicious elsewhere. That said I have seen police in Prince William
Lol Maureen!
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:34 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
It sounds better in the original German.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Show me your papers
&g
ever lost your wallet? If you were stopped when that happened couldn't
you be arrested. I mean after all you don't have your docs on you.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM, morgan l wrote:
>>
>> No, drafting a law that clearly puts untrained people
I was stopped on the Canadian border and held because we had an Irish
couple with us. We nearly missed our flight but I didn't complain and
neither did they.
As for the Latino's being singled out, standing in front of Home Depot
is usually the dead giveaway they don't have papers.
On Wed, May 1
Go after the employers who are hiring them.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> What is your solution to the overwhelming illegal immigration problem?
>
> (I am sure you have a better proposal)
~|
Order t
Yeah...and what is to stop it? If you think that it is going to stop racial
profiling, I have some beachfront property there to sell you...
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:25 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Read
It sounds better in the original German.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Show me your papers
>
> Done.
>
> What's so hard about that?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Cold
th a white hood.
-Original Message-
From: Kris Sisk [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:56 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
>2) If you weren't biased against the Republican you'd have a fair
>opinion one way or the other.
Eh, no
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> No, drafting a law that clearly puts untrained people in positions to hold
> someone without evidence of a crime is something we shouldn't do.
If it's going to be law then the people enforcing it will be trained.
Not having the docs is evidenc
Only when crossing the Canadian border. I look too WASP to be
suspicious elsewhere. That said I have seen police in Prince William
County stop people and demand to see immigration papers. BTW PWC
passed a set of laws a couple of years that are the basis for the
Arizona law. I'll have to dig it up
What is your solution to the overwhelming illegal immigration problem?
(I am sure you have a better proposal)
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:41 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> No, drafting a law that clearly puts untrained people in positions to hold
> someone without evidence of a crime is something we sh
No, drafting a law that clearly puts untrained people in positions to hold
someone without evidence of a crime is something we shouldn't do. Again, we
have a policy in this country of innocent until proven guilty, under which
there are only a limited number of things that can cause someone to be
d
That can be said of all laws. Who should pick and choose which ones we
decide to risk enforcing?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> Since when has something being disallowed prevented it from happening?
> That's why many of us opposed to this law oppose it for it's potential fo
I never said you were a Democrat. How did you jump to that conclusion?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> The fact that the article was Republican has zero to do with identifying it
> as biased. That's where you err. You think disagreeing with a Republican
> makes you a Democrat
Since when has something being disallowed prevented it from happening?
That's why many of us opposed to this law oppose it for it's potential for
abuse. Abuse, as in being applied outside the intended scope.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Read the fookin bill already. It doesn
Sorry, that was uncalled for. All the negativity has me snippy.
I'm saying mistakes will always happen but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't still enforce the law.
If they need to add training so be it. I'm sure the local police
wouldn't mind training for processing illegals over to the feds and
low
Let me try to understand your complaint.Enforcing the law can lead to
mistakes so we shouldn't do it?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:22 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> No, you missed the part where the authorities decided to not accept the
> papers (CDL drivers license) of a citizen, and detained him until
The fact that the article was Republican has zero to do with identifying it
as biased. That's where you err. You think disagreeing with a Republican
makes you a Democrat. Like somehow you have to be one or the other. Sir, you
jump to way too many conclusions.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Sa
has anyone ever asked you for your green card, larry?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> someone like me whether I have my green card on me or now would not
> get stopped. If I looked latino that's a different matter entirely.
> Its a matter of racial profiling. But that
Read the fookin bill already. It doesn't allow that.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> someone like me whether I have my green card on me or now would not
> get stopped. If I looked latino that's a different matter entirely.
> Its a matter of racial profiling. But that
No, you missed the part where the authorities decided to not accept the
papers (CDL drivers license) of a citizen, and detained him until someone
showed up with further papers (birth certificate). This was a natural-born
citizen that was detained even though he had legal ID, because the
authoritie
someone like me whether I have my green card on me or now would not
get stopped. If I looked latino that's a different matter entirely.
Its a matter of racial profiling. But that seems to be perfectly
acceptable to some.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Show me your papers
>
> Do
Ah, maybe you missed the part that comes after: "I don't have papers."
They call in the OBGYN or whatever Larry trained for.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:01 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> The open-ended potential for abuse, that's what. A natural-born citizen that
> is "suspected" of being illegal can
>2) If you weren't biased against the Republican you'd have a fair
>opinion one way or the other.
Eh, not being biased against the Republicans doesn't mean you have a fair
opinion. You're walking proof of that, no offense intended. Being biased
against Democrats is no more fair.
And yeah, like
The open-ended potential for abuse, that's what. A natural-born citizen that
is "suspected" of being illegal can be detained until proof that they are a
citizen is produced. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This is
guilty until proven innocent. Plain and simple.
On Wed, May 19, 2010
Show me your papers
Done.
What's so hard about that?
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> Before I got into CF I was involved in developing computer based
> training for what's now ICE. There is a considerable difference in the
> training of ICE officers and reg
Many Dems falsely accuse Reps of being racist because they implement a
federal law.
One Republican points this out.
You slam the republican for being biased.
1) You have an amazing grasp of the obvious.
2) If you weren't biased against the Republican you'd have a fair
opinion one way or the ot
Sam,
Before I got into CF I was involved in developing computer based
training for what's now ICE. There is a considerable difference in the
training of ICE officers and regular police. It also depends on where
the officers are - i.e., Canadian border vs Mexican border, the NW
Pacific border regi
, May 19, 2010 7:52 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Wow, you really compared a cop handling illegal aliens to an OBGYN
doing heart surgery?
So the feds have like 6 plus years training on asking someone if they
are hear legally?
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
&g
Republican = 1 little box
Democrat = 1 little box
You think there are only two little boxes, and that I dwell inside one of
them.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> ???
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Medic wrote:
> >
> > You know Sam, we don't all fit into one of two litt
???
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> You know Sam, we don't all fit into one of two little boxes.
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinow
You know Sam, we don't all fit into one of two little boxes.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> A Republican complains about Democrats abuse and instead of evaluating
> the complaint you dismiss because it's bias. That's sounds like you're
> protecting the Dems.
> BTW, it's a face
A Republican complains about Democrats abuse and instead of evaluating
the complaint you dismiss because it's bias. That's sounds like you're
protecting the Dems.
BTW, it's a facebook page not the NYTimes.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> How exactly does me noticing obvious bia
Wow, you really compared a cop handling illegal aliens to an OBGYN
doing heart surgery?
So the feds have like 6 plus years training on asking someone if they
are hear legally?
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> The difference is that its federal immigration officials that
How exactly does me noticing obvious bias in an article mean that I stand
behind politicians?
Jayzuz Sam, you really are a "with us or a'gin us" type of guy aren't you?
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Medic wrote:
> >
> > Well that certainly
When have Beck or Limbaugh said anything bipartisan?
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:21 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> Well that certainly didn't soun
that
it's ok for your gyne to do heart surgery on you, after all...the gyne is a
doctor...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kris Sisk [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:13 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: More on AZ
Well he is right about one thing. Ariz
I liked the attribution, personally
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> Well that certainly didn't sound biased. I have a great deal of respect for
> agenda-free journalism.
> Great work.
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> Well that certainly didn't sound biased. I have a great deal of respect for
> agenda-free journalism.
So you stand by the politician's that do what you accuse Rush and Beck
of doing in the name of bi-partisanship? Or something like that?
> Great
Well he is right about one thing. Arizona's immigration law that has everyone
in an uproar has been on federal books for a very long time.
That said I could really do without the bias. I don't like Obama either but
good grief.
~
Well that certainly didn't sound biased. I have a great deal of respect for
agenda-free journalism.
Great work.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
>
> On Fox News this morning, State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley
> became the thi
88 matches
Mail list logo
