PDA

View Full Version : The downtown mayham on May day


caliboy1321
05-02-2007, 10:28 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-media3may03,0,6704192.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Yet more proof LAPD IS FING NUTS and why we need are 2nd Amendment right back in CA.

randy
05-03-2007, 12:03 AM
For the 15 injured officers get well soon.

The way Bratton acted is another reason he needs to go.

As for the reporters hey being in the media is a tough job sport next time move faster. Your credentials aren't a superman suit.

Here's a clue when you see the cops in riot gear LEAVE NOW! Or you can stay and justifiably catch a beating. I'm betting the cops didn't say leave the park except for the cameras.

Cardinal Sin
05-03-2007, 12:51 AM
How quickly the brass sells out it's own men . . . no wonder LAPD has a retention problem. Why put up with spineless leadership when you can work for a department that pays better and might stand up for you too. LAPD has lost a lot of its luster with the brass playing to the media and civil rights leaders,(if you can call them that). I would love to see a chief that remembers what it is like to be in the thick of things and not behind a desk, years removed from the street cop. PC is for pussies. He should have just said that "the public was warned, the public didnt seem to care, T.F.B. Better luck nextime, bet they won't try that crap again any time soon!"

ts
05-03-2007, 1:21 AM
How quickly the brass sells out it's own men . . . no wonder LAPD has a retention problem. Why put up with spineless leadership when you can work for a department that pays better and might stand up for you too. LAPD has lost a lot of its luster with the brass playing to the media and civil rights leaders,(if you can call them that). I would love to see a chief that remembers what it is like to be in the thick of things and not behind a desk, years removed from the street cop. PC is for pussies. He should have just said that "the public was warned, the public didnt seem to care, T.F.B. Better luck nextime, bet they won't try that crap again any time soon!"

This isn't the wild wild west - this is So Cal...:rolleyes:

randy
05-03-2007, 2:33 AM
This isn't the wild wild west - this is So Cal...:rolleyes:

Yep you've figured out the problem. It's So Cal home of somebodies elses fault not mine.

I don't know all the facts yet and neither does anybody else. But Bratton was quick to kick his officers to the curb.

Bratton talks a good game against his men but waffles against the bad guys.

However as spineless as Bratton is you won't get anybody better until you get a new city council and mayor.

aileron
05-03-2007, 5:09 AM
So, why wasn't INS, ICE there picking up illegals???

rod
05-03-2007, 6:13 AM
So, why wasn't INS, ICE there picking up illegals???

Same reason you can't deer hunt at the zoo.:D

Seriously, I'm not sure. From what little I know, there seems to be a lot of red tape involved. I'm sure most agents would love to round up all the illegals but simply aren't allowed to.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 6:18 AM
So, why wasn't INS, ICE there picking up illegals???

How are they supposed to determine who is illegal or not? Are they supposed to go up to every brown person and demand proof of citizenship? I'd rather not trample on the rights of American citizens who are practicing their 1st Amendment rights just to catch illegals. The ends do no justify the means.

jaymz
05-03-2007, 6:19 AM
LAPD needs another Chief Gates. He was the last guy that had the respect of his officers and didn't play puppet to the City Council.

tonb
05-03-2007, 6:22 AM
How are they supposed to determine who is illegal or not? Are they supposed to go up to every brown person and demand proof of citizenship? I'd rather not trample on the rights of American citizens who are practicing their 1st Amendment rights just to catch illegals. The ends do no justify the means.

Yes, more or less...

Just like a DUI checkpoint, check citizenship on their way out. Illegals, get on the bus you're going home.

jaymz
05-03-2007, 6:23 AM
How are they supposed to determine who is illegal or not? Are they supposed to go up to every brown person and demand proof of citizenship?

I'm sure that it would be safe to assume that a good portion of the people @ a pro-immigration rally, are not going to be there if they are already here legally. Just like it would be safe to assume that most people that you see at a restaurant are probably there to eat something.:D

WokMaster1
05-03-2007, 6:25 AM
Same reason you can't deer hunt at the zoo.:D

Seriously, I'm not sure. From what little I know, there seems to be a lot of red tape involved. I'm sure most agents would love to round up all the illegals but simply aren't allowed to.

Nah! who's going to mow their lawn if they get everyone?:D

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 6:26 AM
Yes.

Just like a DUI checkpoint, check citizenship on their way out. Illegals, get on the bus you're going home.

How about we have a checkpoint at your local shooting range. Everyone has to check their guns with the authorities and standby while they determine if they're legal or not? How would you like that?

Funny how people here always claim to be such staunch defenders of the constitution, but are ready to toss it out the window when it doesnt fit with their thinking.

That's all I have to say because I know this will devolve into everyone calling me an illegal-loving liberal.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 6:29 AM
I'm sure that it would be safe to assume that a good portion of the people @ a pro-immigration rally, are not going to be there if they are already here legally. Just like it would be safe to assume that most people that you see at a restaurant are probably there to eat something.:D


Not all of them are illegal. So I ask again, are you ready to violate the rights of American citizens so that the authorities can get to the people who are breaking the law?

If the answer is yes, you should be careful what you wish for. That kind of thing can easily be flipped around and used against you.

tonb
05-03-2007, 6:40 AM
How about we have a checkpoint at your local shooting range. Everyone has to check their guns with the authorities and standby while they determine if they're legal or not? How would you like that?

Funny how people here always claim to be such staunch defenders of the constitution, but are ready to toss it out the window when it doesnt fit with their thinking.

That's all I have to say because I know this will devolve into everyone calling me an illegal-loving liberal.

Illegals do not have constitutionally protected rights as they are not "of the people."

Since there are obviously not enough officers to check guns at ranges, how unlikely is it that a law could be instituted requiring the range offical to check guns, if something is illegal he has to report it. That doesn't seem like a problem to me.

jaymz
05-03-2007, 6:40 AM
Not all of them are illegal. So I ask again, are you ready to violate the rights of American citizens so that the authorities can get to the people who are breaking the law?

If the answer is yes, you should be careful what you wish for. That kind of thing can easily be flipped around and used against you.

How is asking for valid ID violating anyone's Rights? I see you are from San Diego. Have you ever been to Mexico? Would you feel your Rights were violated if they asked for ID when you tried to get back into the US? Isn't that what passports are for?

tonb
05-03-2007, 6:42 AM
Not all of them are illegal. So I ask again, are you ready to violate the rights of American citizens so that the authorities can get to the people who are breaking the law?

If the answer is yes, you should be careful what you wish for. That kind of thing can easily be flipped around and used against you.

Just like a DUI checkpoint, not everyone is drunk. What citizens rights would be taken away by an ID check? I"m not saying we should get to the point of the Nazi's and "Actung, papers please!" but if you've got an event where you know there will be a lot of illegals present, I don't see the problem trying to round them up and kick them out.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want more gov control, less in fact would be better.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 6:46 AM
How is asking for valid ID violating anyone's Rights? I see you are from San Diego. Have you ever been to Mexico? Would you feel your Rights were violated if they asked for ID when you tried to get back into the US? Isn't that what passports are for?

Crossing back into the US is different.

If at a demonstraion in the US and I was legally expressing myself as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and the cops decided to detain me due to the color of my skin and force me to produce citizenship papers, I would feel my rights are being violated.

That's the issue I have. Im not talking about the rights of illegals. Im talking about detaining AMERICAN CITIZENS because they happen to have a darker skin tone and then asking them for papers. That's BS if you ask me.

I understand everyone here hates illegals and all that so Im gonna try and convince you otherwise. I just want to point out that American citizens can easily be caught up in your heavy handed "round everyone up" approach.

tonb
05-03-2007, 6:50 AM
I'm not saying detain them, a checkpoint, just like I said before like a DUI checkpoint. If you're not drunk and you're driving with a valid license... ie. not breaking the law, then there's no problem is there?

Basically it's racial profiling, which I don't see a problem with.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 6:54 AM
I'm not saying detain them, a checkpoint, just like I said before like a DUI checkpoint. If you're not drunk and you're driving with a valid license... ie. not breaking the law, then there's no problem is there?

Right... if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Where have I heard that before?


Basically it's racial profiling, which I don't see a problem with.

Well I'm Black, so you can understand why I'm not a fan of your methods. :)

1919_4_ME
05-03-2007, 6:57 AM
So that movie "Demolition Man" wasnt too far off when Sylvester Stallone woke up in a Ultra PC city....:rolleyes:

stator
05-03-2007, 6:57 AM
Mayhem and MayDay have a long tradition of being together throughout history.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 7:05 AM
So that movie "Demolition Man" wasnt too far off when Sylvester Stallone woke up in a Ultra PC city....:rolleyes:

So being against racial profiling is being ultra PC now?

lol.. like I said, be careful what you wish for. If you honestly think the ends justify the means, dont be suprised when the authorities start "profiling" gun owners. Gun crimes are always committed by people in possession of firearms. A lot of you are in possession of firearms. Think about it.

Mute
05-03-2007, 7:09 AM
In spite of his shortcomings, Gates at least stood by his men.

tonb
05-03-2007, 7:17 AM
Right... if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Where have I heard that before?

Well I'm Black, so you can understand why I'm not a fan of your methods. :)

I dunno where? Cops say that or something? (not being sarcastic)

Anyway, the profiling thing I think makes sense to me. I mean, forget the black/hispanic thing which is the typical race issue, how about like asian gangs in Santa Clara county. I mean, say on a certain side of town they got a lot of driveby's from asians in ricer cars. Only makes sense to keep an eye on em if you ask me.

ElCUBANO
05-03-2007, 7:56 AM
This whole illegal immigration thing is really pissing me off. My family had to follow the rules to come here why can't they. They come here illegally then they demand illegal status. They are not just doing jobs Americans will not do they are creating them. Lets not even think about what the social services they use cost us and that soon all the hospitals will go broke providing free services for them.If this keeps up our middle class will be gone just like in Mexico. Young black men are dying in the inner cities cause they can't get a decent job because some illegal is doing it. We need to take care of our own first. Sorry I know the bleeding hearts what to save the whole world but do we have to screw up the only decent country in the whole world to do it. Not even going to into the top brass to standing by their troops until at least all the facts are in been there done that really motivates you to get out and do the job.

Glock22Fan
05-03-2007, 7:57 AM
I wasn't there. I don't know if there was a riot that needed controlling or not. I saw no such evidence on the (few) videos I saw on the news. I did see a scattered group of people (hardly a threat to those in riot gear) getting treated roughly. I did see a young person carrying what must have been a very lethal set of bongo drums get beaten to the ground. I did see reporters with what must have been fully automatic cameras and tape recorders get beaten to the ground.

Usually, I am on the side of the police; I know they do a very difficult and frightening job and am usually prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I will take a lot of convincing that what I saw on the news was necessary.

FortCourageArmory
05-03-2007, 8:01 AM
In spite of his shortcomings, Gates at least stood by his men.
Actually Gates was responsible for more firings of LAPD officers than anyone in the department's history...until Bernard Parks took over. And not for only major reasons (like corruption, illegal use of force and such). He was dropping officers for just about any reason he could. I guess he wanted a super squeaky-clean department full of perfect cops. Something that is impossible to reach. And he cowtowed to the PC crowd just as quick as Bratton is doing. He also was responsible for the worst riots in L. A.'s history. Who remembers his fued with the mayor and City Coucil? Or his instructions to the line officers to pull out of Florence and Normandie and let it burn? Gates was NO friend of Los Angeles and not officer friendly either.

As for tonb's approach to searching for illegals, it simply wouldn't work. Far too many legal citizens woudl be caught up in your net. How do you justify unwarranted seach and seizure ("Show me your papers..") in your attempt to catch illegals? If I'm not mistaken, that's covered by the 1st and 4th Ammendments.

LECTRIKHED
05-03-2007, 8:04 AM
How are they supposed to determine who is illegal or not? Are they supposed to go up to every brown person and demand proof of citizenship? I'd rather not trample on the rights of American citizens who are practicing their 1st Amendment rights just to catch illegals. The ends do no justify the means.

Yes. I would call an illegal immigration rally, probable cause to ask to see proper ID. They should have arrested every illegal and sent them on a bus back to TJ. 12,000,000 illegals is enough cause to ask to see ID. Anyways the police are allowed to ask for ID.

Res
05-03-2007, 8:06 AM
Just like a DUI checkpoint, check citizenship on their way out. Illegals, get on the bus you're going home.

I sort of like the idea. But what happens if you forget your wallet..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/ResDogDM/Forum%20Images/BornELA.jpg :p

FortCourageArmory
05-03-2007, 8:06 AM
And you probably won't see anything video-wise that would "justify" the police response. MOst of the video was taken by Telemundo TV. They aren't exactly unbiased. The police have stated that the demonstrators left the sidewalk and were getting into the street. They tried to get them back up into the park but were pelted with rocks and bottles. So, they decided it was time to break up the demonstration. When the cops call a demonstration an "illegal assembly", anyone not dispersing immediately is going to be sorry. They say move and you say "Move me" will get you a beating, plain and simple. There were several THOUSAND demonstrators and only a hundred cops. Do the math.

FortCourageArmory
05-03-2007, 8:08 AM
Anyways the police are allowed to ask for ID.

You are required to identify yourself to the police when asked, not produce identy papers. There's a HUGE difference.

mark3lb
05-03-2007, 8:09 AM
I think the Police were professional and handled it properly. There was illegal immigrants throwing rocks and bottles at the LAPD. Rubber bullets and beanbag shots were properly used in this case to restore order. As far as that stupid Fox 11 reporter who intentionally says english words at the end of every sentence with a extra fake Spanish flair and the LAPD officer knocking her to the ground was classic. I laughed my *** off. If the media is going to be the cheerleaders of criminal illegal immigrants ruining California, it nice seeing them treating her like one. The LAPD acted accordingly and regained order.

tonb
05-03-2007, 8:15 AM
I sort of like the idea. But what happens if you forget your wallet..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/ResDogDM/Forum%20Images/BornELA.jpg :p

LOL classic

jaymz
05-03-2007, 8:23 AM
Actually Gates was responsible for more firings of LAPD officers than anyone in the department's history...until Bernard Parks took over. And not for only major reasons (like corruption, illegal use of force and such). He was dropping officers for just about any reason he could. I guess he wanted a super squeaky-clean department full of perfect cops. Something that is impossible to reach. And he cowtowed to the PC crowd just as quick as Bratton is doing. He also was responsible for the worst riots in L. A.'s history. Who remembers his fued with the mayor and City Coucil? Or his instructions to the line officers to pull out of Florence and Normandie and let it burn? Gates was NO friend of Los Angeles and not officer friendly either.


Looks like you believe too much of what you see/hear on the evening news. I personally know many current and former LAPD cops that served under Gates, and have met and had conversations with hundreds more. I don't recall ANY complaints about Gates. I can't even begin to tell you how many have been less than pleased about ANY Chief after Gates.

jaymz
05-03-2007, 8:27 AM
While we are discussing it. Here's an email (http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox-2006-040306.htm) I just got from a co-worker that relates.

guimus
05-03-2007, 8:34 AM
It's pretty shocking to see the degree to which people who claim to be conservative or libertarian misunderstand their own politics.

Fate
05-03-2007, 8:58 AM
People ask "why doesn't the INS just round people up at these things?" Well, it's not widely reported, but Los Angeles, like San Francisco is an official "Sanctuary City." That means illegals are not looked for, or reported to federal authorities when found.

And regarding the beat down of reporters...

After the DNC of 2002, media was guaranteed by police of being left alone and allowed to cover such an incident, regardless of any "disperse" order. They were told they could stay and report.

But then, as history proved, that "treaty" wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Sad how the media has long encouraged the trampling of the 2nd Amendment, yet now they might begin to realize the entire Constitution is being walked on when it serves the purposes of those in power, including the 1st Amendment.

xrMike
05-03-2007, 8:58 AM
Not all of them are illegal. So I ask again, are you ready to violate the rights of American citizens so that the authorities can get to the people who are breaking the law?How is requiring somebody to prove their legal status "violating their rights?"

Are your rights being violated when a cop stops you on the freeway and asks you for your driver's license and proof of insurance?

Are your rights being violated when you go to buy a gun and the FFL requires that you show your driver's license to establish residency?

I don't see the difference.

If it would result in the deportation of large numbers of illegals, I'd have no problem whatsoever with cops or INS also asking ME, whitest of whiteys, to provide proof of citizenship.

guimus
05-03-2007, 9:23 AM
How is requiring somebody to prove their legal status "violating their rights?"

Are your rights being violated when a cop stops you on the freeway and asks you for your driver's license and proof of insurance?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. When you get your license, you pre-consent to show license, registration, and insurance when stopped by LEO. If a LEO tries the same when you're walking down the street, you are entirely within your rights to say no. I also seem to recall some right to assemble written into law somewhere...

Are your rights being violated when you go to buy a gun and the FFL requires that you show your driver's license to establish residency?

Again, this is codified into law. According to our State government, purchasing a firearm is the privilege of state residents with clean records. (now notice that I said State Gov't and please don't bring up the 2nd A. That's federal gov't.)

I don't see the difference.

Then you fail at knowing your rights.

If it would result in the deportation of large numbers of illegals, I'd have no problem whatsoever with cops or INS also asking ME, whitest of whiteys, to provide proof of citizenship.

I'm going to call your bluff here. Do you really want to live in a police state? Have you ever? Have you ever traveled somewhere where you are required to present papers a few times per day to maintain your outside-of-prison existence? Do you even carry papers that prove your citizenship. Unless you frequently carry either a passport or a certified birth certificate, the answer is no.

simonov
05-03-2007, 9:38 AM
It's pretty shocking to see the degree to which people who claim to be conservative or libertarian misunderstand their own politics.

http://guntards.net/forum/img/smilies/lol.gif

AJAX22
05-03-2007, 10:18 AM
It's pretty shocking to see the degree to which people who claim to be conservative or libertarian misunderstand their own politics.

It's more acurate to say that the libertarian platform doesn't acknowledge the nationalist viewpoint of a majority of those who consider the libertarian ideals to be those closest in line with there own.

mcubed4130
05-03-2007, 10:19 AM
While this is all rather amusing... we all know our leaders are a bunch of wimps... And the only thing they DO stand for are things that add $$ into their political war chests.

Until such time that we the people, can run the "recall your representative" practically at will - on ANY elected official, who is pulling this crap... this will continue.

In the meantime, I'm sure our "representatives" - will appreciate how much we shoot each other in the foot around here on a regular basis... nitpicking each other on s^&% that doesn't mean anything anyway.

You don't like racial profiling, not a problem - because racial profiling was not appropriate for the May Day (aka Socialist Day) rallies... The profile that should have been used is... you SHOWED up for a rally in support of people who are BREAKING our laws.

You want to setup people at every public range, that check to see if your guns are legal... NO problem, just make sure they KNOW the laws. None of this crap about oh - your rifle is black and shoots 223, therefore I put you in jail.

And REALLY what will all of this do? NOTHING...

When employers (read BIG CORPs, lining the pockets of every representative we have) - are put in JAIL or given a $500,000 fine PER illegal worker... then we will no longer have a problem with ILLEGAL aliens (from ANY country) - showing up here and sucking our country dry.

ALSO - Don't buy into the CNN news lies... a VERY large number of people who come over our southern border are NOT from South America. Read the Border patrols stats sometime, the number will surprise you...

-M3

xrMike
05-03-2007, 10:36 AM
Driving is a privilege, not a right. When you get your license, you pre-consent to show license, registration, and insurance when stopped by LEO. If a LEO tries the same when you're walking down the street, you are entirely within your rights to say no. I also seem to recall some right to assemble written into law somewhere...

Again, this is codified into law. According to our State government, purchasing a firearm is the privilege of state residents with clean records. (now notice that I said State Gov't and please don't bring up the 2nd A. That's federal gov't.)

Then you fail at knowing your rights.

I'm going to call your bluff here. Do you really want to live in a police state? Have you ever? Have you ever traveled somewhere where you are required to present papers a few times per day to maintain your outside-of-prison existence? Do you even carry papers that prove your citizenship. Unless you frequently carry either a passport or a certified birth certificate, the answer is no.You make some good points. I don't agree with all of them, although some of them make me realize there might be a little hypocrisy in my beliefs on this subject... I haven't thought through all of the aspects of it...

But overall, I can honestly tell you, I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever proving my citizenship upon LEO request, as long as it's done according to some policy that guarantees respect and preserves my existing rights against illegal detainment and illegal search and seizure. I'd gladly carry around a copy of my birth certificate if doing so would help rid this country of the 12 to possibly 20 million illegal immigrants that are estimated to now live here.

xrMike
05-03-2007, 10:38 AM
When employers (read BIG CORPs, lining the pockets of every representative we have) - are put in JAIL or given a $500,000 fine PER illegal worker... then we will no longer have a problem with ILLEGAL aliens (from ANY country) - showing up here and sucking our country dry.I think this pretty well sums up the ONLY real solution to the problem. Only when employers are truly AFRAID to hire illegals, will they stop coming.

Super_tactical
05-03-2007, 10:45 AM
There is a war going on in our country. Cameramen, get the f outa the way and let the LAPD smash the crap out of these anti-American illegals. They should all be deported. I feel no sorrow for the reporters, they are there to further the cause of the enemy.

ICE should have been there with a mass round-up and deportation plan. You think these riots are going to decrease? The media shows them as victims. These riots are going to spread to Norcal, then to the rest of the country until they buckle our knees.

/Rant I need a cigarette

AJAX22
05-03-2007, 11:05 AM
Guys, let's keep this a friendly discussion, emotions are running kinda high and we are on a public forum acting as ambassidors to the firearms community in some respects.

People feel very strongly on this subject, but on some things people may have to just agree to disagree.

gimebakmybulits
05-03-2007, 12:21 PM
For the 15 injured officers get well soon.

The way Bratton acted is another reason he needs to go.

As for the reporters hey being in the media is a tough job sport next time move faster. Your credentials aren't a superman suit.

Here's a clue when you see the cops in riot gear LEAVE NOW! Or you can stay and justifiably catch a beating. I'm betting the cops didn't say leave the park except for the cameras.


Just remember that the day you protest them taking your guns away. You have a right to assemble and speak put against what you feel is wrong and what LAPD did was unjustified.

John

BTW: I'm not singling you out, I'm just reminding people this is about the actions taken against people who assemble (their cause is irrelevant). We should not have to worry about these type of tactics used against US citizens.

bg
05-03-2007, 1:07 PM
When the Police are trying to maintain order and some morons decide
to throw rocks & bottles at them...Then it's on. All's fair !

M. D. Van Norman
05-03-2007, 2:13 PM
Bratton deserves to go, because he is either a fool or a liar. If he is fired because his subordinates can’t manage a meaningless little protest rally, then so much the better.

As for my fellow CalGunners who are so eager to sacrifice the rights of others, I hope you will see the error of your ways before it is too late for us all.

proraptor
05-03-2007, 2:17 PM
I agree.....They were talking about it on the radio today and a LAPD cop that was there said they got bottles, fruits, rocks etc etc thrown at them for awhile and just had to stand there and take it until they got the orders to stop them....

These people are illegal and have no rights in my country.....My girlfriend is Korean and her family came in the legal way and all have outstanding jobs. They arent out walking around like a bunch of cowards throwing rocks, etc etc...I give props to LAPD as I think they did a fine job....Especially to that stupid fox 11 news lady which seemed to also be causing problems...

I have no problem with immagrants coming over here if they do it the right way....What we need is a huge wall between us and Mexico with night vision/ heat activated rail guns....Warn them all that if they cross a certain point those guns will start firing.....That will stop them from coming over here....

AYEAREFIFTEEN
05-03-2007, 2:52 PM
The problem with legal citizens is they don't work cheap. Imagine if your son or daughter graduated from college came to you and said..

"I want to pick strawberries for minimum wage and probably develope chronic back problems."
"I want to be a short order chef and work in a shoe box for minimum wage or less."
"I want to work in a garlic processing plant where I have a 1 in 10 chance of losing my arm and will take a $2500 settlement."
"I want to wait outside home depot till some stranger picks me up and gives me $75 to dig holes and trenches for 10 hours."
"I don't really wany any kind of medical or dental benefits."
"I don't need a pension/401K/IRA."
"I want to be stuck in a dead end job with very little chance of advancement"

Get real people. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that 99.9% of mothers and fathers in this country discourage their children to take.

And whoever said Illegal immigrants aren't "OF THE PEOPLE," I hope you meant just legally. If you work hard, pay your taxes, are a good upstanding person and contribute to your society you certainly ARE "of the people" reguardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper that says so. Its kind of like marriage. Is it a piece of paper or a state of mind and value?

Could this state get by without illegal immigrants? Sure! Would you have to work twice as hard as you do now for less money? You bet your ***.

jaymz
05-03-2007, 3:36 PM
The problem with legal citizens is they don't work cheap. Imagine if your son or daughter graduated from college came to you and said..

"I want to pick strawberries for minimum wage and probably develope chronic back problems."
"I want to be a short order chef and work in a shoe box for minimum wage or less."
"I want to work in a garlic processing plant where I have a 1 in 10 chance of losing my arm and will take a $2500 settlement."
"I want to wait outside home depot till some stranger picks me up and gives me $75 to dig holes and trenches for 10 hours."
"I don't really wany any kind of medical or dental benefits."
"I don't need a pension/401K/IRA."
"I want to be stuck in a dead end job with very little chance of advancement"

Get real people. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that 99.9% of mothers and fathers in this country discourage their children to take.

And whoever said Illegal immigrants aren't "OF THE PEOPLE," I hope you meant just legally. If you work hard, pay your taxes, are a good upstanding person and contribute to your society you certainly ARE "of the people" reguardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper that says so. Its kind of like marriage. Is it a piece of paper or a state of mind and value?

Could this state get by without illegal immigrants? Sure! Would you have to work twice as hard as you do now for less money? You bet your ***.

First of all, I don't think there are ANY illegal aliens in this country doing any of the work you mentioned with a college degree. Second, there are MANY workers in this country legally, that fit into your list mentioned above. Lastly, I have serious doubts that ANY illegal immagrants are paying any taxes. That's my biggest gripe about people that are not here legally. My taxes are being used to pay for countless public services, from police and fire services to road construction/maintenance to public schools and welfare. They are enjoying those bennies, and not contributing to the pot. Get legal or get out!

bg
05-03-2007, 3:53 PM
are a good upstanding personYou've
already shot yourself in the foot. If they were such "good upstanding
people", why is the fact that their very first act coming here to the U.S
was-is to BREAK STATE & FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS ???

I agree a much more streamlined process needs to developed to help
those who qualify to become citizens here in the U.S, or at the very
least take the steps to LEGALLY acquire green cards, but to defy the
laws of our land by putting themselves and families before the good
of the Nation is not only wrong but a disgrace-face slap to our very own
beliefs. We are a land of laws. Either go with the system or get out.

DRM6000
05-03-2007, 4:14 PM
First of all, I don't think there are ANY illegal aliens in this country doing any of the work you mentioned with a college degree. Second, there are MANY workers in this country legally, that fit into your list mentioned above. Lastly, I have serious doubts that ANY illegal immagrants are paying any taxes. That's my biggest gripe about people that are not here legally. My taxes are being used to pay for countless public services, from police and fire services to road construction/maintenance to public schools and welfare. They are enjoying those bennies, and not contributing to the pot. Get legal or get out!

there are people here illegally that do not receive benefits or retirement plans that do have college degrees. the ones i know do domestic work (house cleaning, nannies, etc.), construction, hauling and many other types of jobs. they are intelligent people who happen to come from countries where employment is difficult to come by even when possessing a degree.

the people that i know or know of, have usually overstayed their visas and therefore became illegal. i guess there is big difference between them and those who climbed over the fence.

speaking of fence...an ex-roomate of a friend was caught coming over illegally from mexico. she was locked up for a very short period of time, paid a fine or something as was allowed to stay for six months.

i know of a few people who have a taxpayer id number and tried to pay taxes. the response from the irs was that they were not required to pay them.

i know of a woman who was here illegally and got married to an american citizen. she didn't receive any sh*t from the usics. another one is getting married soon and her mother was granted a visa to come to the wedding.


i forgot where i was going with this, but i thought i'd post my thoughts.

DRM6000
05-03-2007, 4:22 PM
The problem with legal citizens is they don't work cheap. Imagine if your son or daughter graduated from college came to you and said..

"I want to pick strawberries for minimum wage and probably develope chronic back problems."
"I want to be a short order chef and work in a shoe box for minimum wage or less."
"I want to work in a garlic processing plant where I have a 1 in 10 chance of losing my arm and will take a $2500 settlement."
"I want to wait outside home depot till some stranger picks me up and gives me $75 to dig holes and trenches for 10 hours."
"I don't really wany any kind of medical or dental benefits."
"I don't need a pension/401K/IRA."
"I want to be stuck in a dead end job with very little chance of advancement"

Get real people. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that 99.9% of mothers and fathers in this country discourage their children to take.

And whoever said Illegal immigrants aren't "OF THE PEOPLE," I hope you meant just legally. If you work hard, pay your taxes, are a good upstanding person and contribute to your society you certainly ARE "of the people" reguardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper that says so. Its kind of like marriage. Is it a piece of paper or a state of mind and value?

Could this state get by without illegal immigrants? Sure! Would you have to work twice as hard as you do now for less money? You bet your ***.


some americans don't want those jobs because they have a sense of entitlement and others are just lazy bastards. college kids want a big salary when they graduate and think service jobs and manual labor is beneath them. lazy porkers stay at home watching afternoon soaps while waiting for that good, well-paying job to come to them.

if you need the money bad enough, you should be damn lucky to have any paying job. there are no bad jobs out there as long as it pays.

we can get by without illegal immigrant labor if our attitudes change.

Crazed_SS
05-03-2007, 4:29 PM
I'd gladly carry around a copy of my birth certificate if doing so would help rid this country of the 12 to possibly 20 million illegal immigrants that are estimated to now live here

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." .. I know I heard that somewhere before.

You guys so are blinded by your hatred of illegals that you dont realize you're "Paper please" approach would be detrimental to the liberty of legal citizens.

Sam Hainn
05-03-2007, 4:40 PM
People ask "why doesn't the INS just round people up at these things?" Well, it's not widely reported, but Los Angeles, like San Francisco is an official "Sanctuary City." That means illegals are not looked for, or reported to federal authorities when found.

It's also to avoid an obvious outcome treating a crowd aggressively - a riot like Watts or Rodney King riots. it would have been stupid for 500 LAPD and maybe 100 INS to go up against 25,000 people and try detaining & manhanding them. Keep that to the sweat-shops and non-union assembly lines. They ended up with a mini riot anways but it would have been worse if gouging the crowd was done.

pnkssbtz
05-03-2007, 5:01 PM
The problem with legal citizens is they don't work cheap. Imagine if your son or daughter graduated from college came to you and said.. Actually, they do work cheap. You see the average legal citizen doesn't get welfare, pays their taxes, pays any fines for breaking traffic laws, pays car insurance, pays for emergency services and doesn't destroy our city.

When you factor all those in, Illegal Immigrants actually cost more per dollar than legal citizens.

Let me amend the following to point out things you left out:
"I want to pick strawberries for minimum wage and probably develope chronic back problems."
And then file for workers compensation with frivolous or fake medical claims to try and get "whats owed to them" destroying their employer with legal fees.

"I want to be a short order chef and work in a shoe box for minimum wage or less."
And get paid cash under the table so they can claim they are unemployed and not have to pay taxes but still get welfare.

"I want to work in a garlic processing plant where I have a 1 in 10 chance of losing my arm and will take a $2500 settlement."
$2500 settlement? Are you kidding me? In LA the lawyers would be raping that processing plant under workers comp. claims. This is bull****, or the person taking the settlement was an idiot.

"I want to wait outside home depot till some stranger picks me up and gives me $75 to dig holes and trenches for 10 hours."
Lets see, $75 CASH for 10 hour = $7.50 an hour. Conveniently if I work at a fast food joint and make $9.00 an hour, I lose about 22% to taxes and Sociel Security which equals: $7.02 an hour. Gee they take home more money an hour! But since they won't give me overtime and I had to be their 30 minutes before work, and it takes an hour to an hour and a half to close out the tills, clean up and balance the credit card machine, that means for 10 hours of work, I can only claim 8 hours so that I am only taking home $56.16 to their $75.00

"I don't really wany any kind of medical or dental benefits."
Most people working service jobs don't get medical. And unless you work for a big corporation or the government the dental benefits only cover cleanings, once a year. I have to pay over $325 a month for my health care, and I just paid off a $2,250 emergency hospital visit I had. How much does the illegal pay for their hospital visit? Ah, thats right *I* am paying for their use of emergency services...

"I don't need a pension/401K/IRA."
Thats funny, I don't have on either! Sucks working in the private sector doesn't it? The world does not owe you a living. You got to put aside y our own money, its not your employers responsibility to pay for everything.

"I want to be stuck in a dead end job with very little chance of advancement"
Welcome to corporate america. The only difference is you don't have to pay $80,000 to get a piece of paper to allow you to work your dead end job, where as the rest of america does.

Get real people. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that 99.9% of mothers and fathers in this country discourage their children to take.Thats funny, my Grandmother is a farmer, and chinese. She did the back breaking farm work every day for 30 years. She doesn't complain, you know why? Because she put my mom through college and now my mom supports her and her standard of living is better. This is how it works for everyone else. Why the free lunch only for illegals? Ah thats right, the world owes them a living.



And whoever said Illegal immigrants aren't "OF THE PEOPLE," I hope you meant just legally. If you work hard, pay your taxes, are a good upstanding person and contribute to your society you certainly ARE "of the people" reguardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper that says so. Its kind of like marriage. Is it a piece of paper or a state of mind and value? Except that illegals don't pay taxes are not contributing to society and are not "good upstanding people".

You see, in order to get a job they need a social. So what they do is they steal one. That means for every illegal worker they are ruining the life of someone else whom they stole their social from. You may call ruining the financial life of another person "Upstanding" but I sure don't


Could this state get by without illegal immigrants? Sure! Would you have to work twice as hard as you do now for less money? You bet your ***. Nope. Supply and Demand. This is a free market. Right now the supply of work is greater than the demand. Which drives wages down.

ravenbkp
05-03-2007, 5:38 PM
Every other nation in the world decides how their borders will work tight entry standards or easy/loose. there is nothing wrong with that.

Why is the US different? why is it we are not allowed to set the rules? could it be that immigrant rights screamers have another agenda?

Industry in this country can get the help they need any time they want they just have to pay a fair rate. What these people pouring in provide is a huge hammer against the average working Joe keeping wages and benefits down.

If the populace coming in is full of such good people why are nearly 1/3 of our prison residents reportedly illegal?

What is it about the millions coming in that the american left is so happy about? could it be Votes?

AYEAREFIFTEEN
05-03-2007, 6:12 PM
Actually, they do work cheap. You see the average legal citizen doesn't get welfare, pays their taxes, pays any fines for breaking traffic laws, pays car insurance, pays for emergency services and doesn't destroy our city.

When you factor all those in, Illegal Immigrants actually cost more per dollar than legal citizens.

Let me amend the following to point out things you left out:

And then file for workers compensation with frivolous or fake medical claims to try and get "whats owed to them" destroying their employer with legal fees.


And get paid cash under the table so they can claim they are unemployed and not have to pay taxes but still get welfare.


$2500 settlement? Are you kidding me? In LA the lawyers would be raping that processing plant under workers comp. claims. This is bull****, or the person taking the settlement was an idiot.


Lets see, $75 CASH for 10 hour = $7.50 an hour. Conveniently if I work at a fast food joint and make $9.00 an hour, I lose about 22% to taxes and Sociel Security which equals: $7.02 an hour. Gee they take home more money an hour! But since they won't give me overtime and I had to be their 30 minutes before work, and it takes an hour to an hour and a half to close out the tills, clean up and balance the credit card machine, that means for 10 hours of work, I can only claim 8 hours so that I am only taking home $56.16 to their $75.00


Most people working service jobs don't get medical. And unless you work for a big corporation or the government the dental benefits only cover cleanings, once a year. I have to pay over $325 a month for my health care, and I just paid off a $2,250 emergency hospital visit I had. How much does the illegal pay for their hospital visit? Ah, thats right *I* am paying for their use of emergency services...


Thats funny, I don't have on either! Sucks working in the private sector doesn't it? The world does not owe you a living. You got to put aside y our own money, its not your employers responsibility to pay for everything.


Welcome to corporate america. The only difference is you don't have to pay $80,000 to get a piece of paper to allow you to work your dead end job, where as the rest of america does.

Thats funny, my Grandmother is a farmer, and chinese. She did the back breaking farm work every day for 30 years. She doesn't complain, you know why? Because she put my mom through college and now my mom supports her and her standard of living is better. This is how it works for everyone else. Why the free lunch only for illegals? Ah thats right, the world owes them a living.



Except that illegals don't pay taxes are not contributing to society and are not "good upstanding people".

You see, in order to get a job they need a social. So what they do is they steal one. That means for every illegal worker they are ruining the life of someone else whom they stole their social from. You may call ruining the financial life of another person "Upstanding" but I sure don't


Nope. Supply and Demand. This is a free market. Right now the supply of work is greater than the demand. Which drives wages down.

I have yet to see ANYONE back statements like yours or similar to yours with numbers.

Show me one illegal immigrant that leeches our system, i'll show you 10 legal citizens that do the same thing. It doesn't matter, legal or not, there are always going to be those that take advantage.

Don't fool yourself and don't fool others. Illegal immigrants that "don't pay taxes and receive free services" are just a tiny part of the population that take advantage of the system. Seems like people these days like to focus on a particular group of people and place blame for these problems that will exist reguardless.

Perhaps you don't understand the impact your words can have. The way you talk EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT is a horrible person, and they are the reason for everything wrong in this world/country/state. You pay taxes and they NEVER do.(WRONG) They ALL get paid under the table.(WRONG) They ALL will commit some kind of disability fraud.(WRONG) Every last one of them goes to the hospital and doesn't pay.(WRONG)

Mute
05-03-2007, 6:23 PM
Fact is, they are breaking the law. Period. Want to change the law. Go ahead. Until then, it is still illegal. Let's also talk about fundamental fairness. How is it fair to grant them citizenship when there are a large number of immigrants who abide by the law and have to put up with years of long lines at the immigration offices? They follow the rule of law and proper procedure because they want to become Americans. Tell them how it's fair that these lawbreakers get special attention and privilege. Especially when a good number of these illegal aliens don't care jack about becoming Americans. All they want is some American dollars to funnel back to their home countries.

I'll have some respect and sympathy for them when they stop waving a damn Mexican flag around on U.S. soil.

Q
05-03-2007, 6:25 PM
You are required to identify yourself to the police when asked, not produce identy papers. There's a HUGE difference.

I wonder how many undocumented immigrants have fake drivers licenses.

I went into a liquor store for a softdrink on sunset one night. When I was at the counter the clerk was talking in spanish with a guy (who had a bicycle outside)talking about his fake license and he had to take it away but didn't. I guess he didn't know I learned spanish in school or didn't care because I look like a chino. Anyhow it looked real to me but when he swiped it he was saying it was not legit and he would get busted if he was caught and sent him on his was without any beer.


I think this pretty well sums up the ONLY real solution to the problem. Only when employers are truly AFRAID to hire illegals, will they stop coming.
That's true but what happens to all the ones already here? That would be pretty scary. several hundred thousand out of work people desperate for a meal.

I think the news said there was a couple hundred thousand less protesters than last year.

I saw the footage and the police were getting crap thrown at them. That is not a peaceful protest! To bad some of the innocent people there got trampled on and got in the middle of the mess. I saw a few baton bruises from shotgun rubber batons. reminded me of the jackass the movie. I was thinking they were legal for civilians to own, but I don't think they are at all.

I wonder how many protesters there will be next year. I think this year there was not much organization or leadership of the protestors by big name stars or radio stations. I think if they had better leadership and advised the people to keep it civil or to stop harrassing the police the incident wouldn't of happened.

M. Sage
05-03-2007, 6:32 PM
The problem with legal citizens is they don't work cheap. Imagine if your son or daughter graduated from college came to you and said..

"I want to pick strawberries for minimum wage and probably develope chronic back problems."
"I want to be a short order chef and work in a shoe box for minimum wage or less."
"I want to work in a garlic processing plant where I have a 1 in 10 chance of losing my arm and will take a $2500 settlement."
"I want to wait outside home depot till some stranger picks me up and gives me $75 to dig holes and trenches for 10 hours."
"I don't really wany any kind of medical or dental benefits."
"I don't need a pension/401K/IRA."
"I want to be stuck in a dead end job with very little chance of advancement"

Get real people. Illegal immigrants take the jobs that 99.9% of mothers and fathers in this country discourage their children to take.

And whoever said Illegal immigrants aren't "OF THE PEOPLE," I hope you meant just legally. If you work hard, pay your taxes, are a good upstanding person and contribute to your society you certainly ARE "of the people" reguardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper that says so. Its kind of like marriage. Is it a piece of paper or a state of mind and value?

Could this state get by without illegal immigrants? Sure! Would you have to work twice as hard as you do now for less money? You bet your ***.

Oh, are you joking? Heads-up guys, they're after jobs that we WILL take. I've worked with mechanics who were illegals. Scary, huh?

Oh, and till recently, I didn't have any health benefits through work. I just filled out the papers, cause my employer can FINALLY afford it.

401k? Pension? IRA? WTF is that!? I'll tell you what: something I don't have.

Work-related health problems? I'm not that old, and I'm already getting some. Back is messed up already, and I can't wait for the fun stuff that'll go on in my hands. I have stitches in a tendon in my finger... they'll always be there. Happened at work. Awesome.

I've worked in factories where people have DIED. Saw a guy almost get killed by a forklift, messed him up pretty bad...

Welcome to the average blue-collar schmuck's life. Yes, citizens will do jobs like that, even us wussy white boys.

Pay taxes? How many illegals do that??? :rolleyes:

AYEAREFIFTEEN
05-03-2007, 6:43 PM
Pay taxes? How many illegals do that??? :rolleyes:

Those that don't get paid under the table and there are plenty.

If more illegal immigrants even had the ability to work for a legit establishment that took taxes, I'm sure they would. When you're illegal its hard to get a job that isn't under the table. Catch 22.

pnkssbtz
05-03-2007, 6:59 PM
I have yet to see ANYONE back statements like yours or similar to yours with numbers.Yes, well I don't see you backing your statements up either; touché?


But since you insist, take a gander at this document:

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?HEHS-95-133

The report shows that in Los Angeles alone, in the year of 1991, Illegal Aliens had a net fiscal impact of $276 million dollars. Just in Los Angeles.

Page 2 of the report says:
"All three national studies concluded that illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state and local governments combined."

Show me one illegal immigrant that leeches our system, i'll show you 10 legal citizens that do the same thing. It doesn't matter, legal or not, there are always going to be those that take advantage.Whether or not legal citizens leech the system is irrelevant. The system is put in place for legal citizens.

The system was not put in place for foreign nationals to drain our economy of funds, and overcrowd our emergency medical providers.



Don't fool yourself and don't fool others. Illegal immigrants that "don't pay taxes and receive free services" are just a tiny part of the population that take advantage of the system. Seems like people these days like to focus on a particular group of people and place blame for these problems that will exist reguardless.

The study done by Huddle in 1992 estimates a net fiscal impact of $14,387,000.00 a year, but only generated $2,486,000.00 in revenue (Net Fiscal loss of $11,901,000.00).

The study done by Urban Institute in 1992 estimates a net fiscal impact of $8,861,000.00 a year, but only generated $6,973,000.00 in revenue (Net Fiscal loss of $1,888,000.00).

In 1993 Huddle revised his estimate and came to a net fiscal impact of $29,298,000.00 a year, but only generated $9,961,000.00 in revenue (Net Fiscal loss of $19,337,000.00).



That was 1992 and 1993 when the conservative estimate of illegal aliens in the United States was only 4 million. Today the conservative estimate is 20 million. That document was congressional report.

Perhaps you don't understand the impact your words can have. The way you talk EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT is a horrible person, and they are the reason for everything wrong in this world/country/state. You pay taxes and they NEVER do.(WRONG) They ALL get paid under the table.(WRONG)First off, you just committed a slippery slope fallacy on a Straw Man argument. I never said they are responsible for the world's ills. However it is fact that by using a fake social security number the person whose number they stole will ultimately pay the price for the discrepancies on their income records.

Further they do not pay taxes other than sales tax. Because the recorded income gets applied to someone else (the person whose Social Security number is stolen or spoofed) pays for the taxes. In order for them to be paying taxes they must be a legal citizen/immigrant.

If they did not put aside some of their pay check to "pay taxes" the IRS and their employment would quickly discover their facade of legal status. Ergo the "paying of taxes" on their paycheck is not to pay taxes but an upkeep on their cover so they don't get discovered.

They ALL will commit some kind of disability fraud.(WRONG)I suggest you open up a phone book and count the number of spanish focused speaking disability lawyers then compare it to the regular disability lawyers. Also take a note of the advertisement methods.

There is a thriving industry of accident and workers comp. claim lawyers which is why in 2004 there were only TWO insurance carriers for manufacturing companies to offer workers comp. insurance. Coincidence? I think not.

Every last one of them goes to the hospital and doesn't pay.(WRONG)Actually, you are wrong. In November I had to be rushed to St. Joseph Hospital for an acute asthma attack combined with a bronchial and sinus infection. I waited 2.5 hours before a doctor saw me. But while I Was there I witnessed 2 patients be treated for non-life threatening complications, both of whom refused to divulge personal information, and both of whom failed to provide valid social security numbers of I.D. and both of whom did not speak english at all.

Now after you leave the hospital, if you are using a fake social security number, and have a fake drivers license, how is the hospital supposed to mail the bill to the correct person?



It is not my intent to belittle people of Mexican or South American heritage. I am merely stating the facts of the situation. No one ever said the truth was pretty.

I am all for legal immigration into our country. It was founded upon immigrants after all. But when people come here illegally, and they steal other people's identities and cause these people financial hardships by destroying their credit history and destroying their financial records with the IRS, destroy our economy and destroy our cities, I have to at the very least be intellectually honest about the realities of the situation.

saki302
05-03-2007, 7:25 PM
I think there is an easy fix to all this mess.

1. no more free health care. If you are not a citizen, you get turned away at the hospital. Yes, it sucks, but it has to be done if you really want illegals to stop coming. If they are here with a work permit (verifiable) they can be given some service. But if you break the law, you get nothing.

2. If neither one of your birth parents is a citizen and you are born here, you are not a citizen. Simple rule. I don't think the founders of our constitution envisioned the problem here- I'm sure they did not intend for it.

Let whomever wants to work here work here- they will come to make money, but will not bring their families with them or have anchor babies.

As to the low paying jobs no one wants- go ask a home depot parking lot worker how much they will take. It will be $10 an hour, for a minimum of 4 hours. That's better than I would get when I was still in school. And there's no tax paid on that income! And on that note-

3. No more income tax. Go to a flat sales tax like the europeans. That way, everyone pays tax equally- if you are rich, you spend more, you pay more tax. And saving money would be encouraged- imagine that!
And tax shelters, etc. are worthless without income tax- sooner or later the money will be spent on something, right? Everyone pays their fair share, or buys nothing.

-Dave

mblat
05-03-2007, 7:46 PM
I have yet to see ANYONE back statements like yours or similar to yours with numbers.


That would be Heritage foundation

http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/

bunch of stuff on the subject...... but of cause they are minority-hating, hood-wearing war-mongering republicans <shrugs>

Just because you CHOOSE not to hear the numbers it doesn't mean they haven't been provided.....

MIKEUSMC2005
05-03-2007, 7:49 PM
Unless I missed something, we forgot about the over crowding, drain of Federal and State dollars from housing illegal gang members.

Directshot
05-03-2007, 8:07 PM
Certainly have enjoyed all the posts on this thread....
The one thing that caught my attention, beyond the Press having their cameras knocked out of their hands was the young man making the statement, .... we were DEMANDING our rights to be legal citizens .... when the police started shooting at us....
Demanding?? How about Earning or Asking or Not Entering the US Illegally in the first place. If it's soooooo bad here that you have to resort to public disorder.......... Leave !

Rob454
05-03-2007, 8:11 PM
I can tell you as a LEGAL IMMIGRANT into this country it takes A LOT of $$ and BS to get through all the red tape to get here. When my mom and I came here we had a 4 year wait in France to get a ENTRY Visa and Legal immigrant status. This by no means meant we would be allowed to STAY here. When we got here we had to apply for green Cards. that took 3 years. after that we had to apply for legal Resident/american citizenship. that took another 4 years. when I was 17 I FINALLY was sworn in as a LEGAL citizen of the USA. I wont lie to you. My mom and I were on Welfare and food stamps when we came here. for about 1 year. in that time we both learned english to be able to speak. I learned more and faster because I was in school. it was the most wonderful feeling to be a american citizen. My mom cried and I hugged her when we were done with the testing and the swear in. I joined the USMC because I felt liek I needed to do something back. I love my country and it really saddes me when i see someone coming here illegally, then demanding the same rights i have just because they simply live here. On thing I really like is when a illegal says i work hard and i shoudl be given citizenship. Im not a criminal and did nothing wrong. yeah but you came here illegally which is a crime in itself but they dont see it that way. Go to any other country and try to demand what a illegal demands here. Youll get your *** thrown out of the country.Not only is it unfair to the hundreds of thousands who want to immigrate here legally but its a kick in the teeth to anyone who came here legally and gave everyting for a better life. I heard on the news these guys saying Ive been here for 30 years we deserve it. S**t a hole there were TWO dammned amnesty in the past 30 years where the hell were you. and if you want to get the sympathy of the american public you may want to wave a AMERICAN flag rather then a mexican flag all the while yelling viva la rasa.
i can tell you that no matter how much a illegal works they will NEVER EVER put as much $$ in the economy as a legal citizen. when someone puts in 10% but they take out 50% in free benefits somewhere the difference needs to be made up. We need to take care of our own first ( and color is not a issue) then worry about the rest of the world. Mark my words in about 20 years we will be so messed up it wont be funny. maybe then the politicians will actally wake up and say what have we done. our so called social programs will be so top heavy I woudlnt be surprised at a tax increase to abotu 50% of gross. right now its abotu 30%.
Rob

ElCUBANO
05-03-2007, 8:43 PM
In Mexico illegal immigration is a felony. In Mexico naturalized citizens are treated like second class citizens that means you cant be a cop, firemen, join their army or even the clergy. You cant be president unless your parents were born there also. So how come we are the ones that are racist. They shoot illegals from Central America on their southern border when they cross illegally but were supposed to have wide open borders. I am sick of the double standard. I am a Cuban born American and I am sick of people no matter where they are from who come here and expect us to learn their language. My parents made sure I became an American in every way. Sorry touchy on this subject every time I see someone waving a Mexican Flag demanding something I just want to puke.

FUSE
05-03-2007, 8:52 PM
[QUOTE=rod;597770]Same reason you can't deer hunt at the zoo.:D

QUOTE] ROFL hahahaa....

frommycolddeadhands
05-03-2007, 9:14 PM
2. If neither one of your birth parents is a citizen and you are born here, you are not a citizen. Simple rule. I don't think the founders of our constitution envisioned the problem here- I'm sure they did not intend for it.

i see a problem here: what if i was brought here when i was 2 years old, i run into a girl, we fall in ... bed, yada, yada, get married, comes out she's been brought here when she was 4, so our children aren't going to be citizens? doesn't make sense. i would simply suggest making naturalization process a lot harder, or adapting Heinlein's idea of government and citizenship: do some useful service, then you can vote.

saki302
05-03-2007, 11:46 PM
No- see, if you became a citizen at some point in your life LEGALLY, then your kids can be citizens too by being born here.

BUT- if you were here illegally and your girl was here illegally as kids, stayed illegal, grew up and had kids, then no dice. Get it? :)

All it would do is cut out the anchor baby 'loophole'.

The naturalization process (for legals!) is already pretty tough- it's the illegals who circumvent the process that are the problem. And as Rob454 said, it plain cheapens it for all those who fought so hard to come here legally, the right way.

I believe the majority of this country feel the same way, so why isn't anyone doing anything about it- it's supposed to be a representative democracy, right?

-Dave

KenpoProfessor
05-04-2007, 5:41 AM
I definitely like this guy. I've seen his stuff before and he's very active. Show him your support in words on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiKBZffQrTY

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

zeek1974
05-04-2007, 7:53 AM
the way memebers of the media are reacting to thier own getting injured makes me puke. They even asked the spokesmen of the Police Protective League if LAPD officers are trained to rough up memebers of the media. What an irogant question. Reporters are always treated better than the average citizen and it's pathetic. Just like in cases regarding firearms, they decided to only report half of the story. What part of "dispurse" or "vamos" didn't they understand. Even if I didn't do anything if I see cops in riot gear walking in my direction I don't stop and stare at them: I get the hell out of their way!

Two Shots
05-04-2007, 8:57 AM
I wasn't there. I don't know if there was a riot that needed controlling or not. I saw no such evidence on the (few) videos I saw on the news. I did see a scattered group of people (hardly a threat to those in riot gear) getting treated roughly. I did see a young person carrying what must have been a very lethal set of bongo drums get beaten to the ground. I did see reporters with what must have been fully automatic cameras and tape recorders get beaten to the ground.

Usually, I am on the side of the police; I know they do a very difficult and frightening job and am usually prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I will take a lot of convincing that what I saw on the news was necessary.

You only saw what the media put on the TV. Did you notice Bottles or rocks being thrown are people spitting on the cops or people getting in thier face (they were)? Has anyone here ever been in this type of situation? How much crap does the PD have to take, When told to disperse then they should. Using the excuse that they didn't understand due to being told in english BS I'm sure if you said I found a 20 Dollar bill they would all say "It's Mine" so get real these people F***ed up thier country and now they're doing it here. They cost money!!
Kalifornia wants to bend over for illegals when they should be taking care of the people that are here and legal. Watch footage on the L.A riots watch what the people turned into. Multiply that with people from a country with low morals and values to begin with. What pissed me off was on the news was Hispanics waving the Mexican flag and saying that they have rights. IMHO While I'm at it Drop the African American, Mexican American, Asian American etc If you were born here your American...Ok I'm going to go take my meds so I'll stop ravin now.....

Shows how some of them love America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBONmdeRvpM

KenpoProfessor
05-04-2007, 9:21 AM
You only saw what the media put on the TV. Did you notice Bottles or rocks being thrown are people spitting on the cops or people getting in thier face (they were)? Has anyone here ever been in this type of situation? How much crap does the PD have to take, When told to disperse then they should. Using the excuse that they didn't understand due to being told in english BS I'm sure if you said I found a 20 Dollar bill they would all say "It's Mine" so get real these people F***ed up thier country and now they're doing it here. They cost money!!
Kalifornia wants to bend over for illegals when they should be taking care of the people that are here and legal. Watch footage on the L.A riots watch what the people turned into. Multiply that with people from a country with low morals and values to begin with. What pissed me off was on the news was Hispanics waving the Mexican flag and saying that they have rights. IMHO While I'm at it Drop the African American, Mexican American, Asian American etc If you were born here your American...Ok I'm going to go take my meds so I'll stop raving...


Watch some of these vids from demonstrations in San Diego and watch the NOTHING done by police, you've got two extremes here. Which do we want?

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=truthbrigade

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

bg
05-04-2007, 9:32 AM
Now the Feds are looking at it..
http://www.yahoo.com/s/573303
The FBI (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=FBI) said Thursday it would open an inquiry into whether the officers' conduct violated citizens' civil rights.Go after the Police and let the scum who started spitting and throwing
rocks & bottles slide..Go figure. :mad:

BerkeleyHK
05-04-2007, 11:38 AM
Here is a better vid on what happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFdNkXJMH9A

thomye
05-04-2007, 12:16 PM
i guess those so called victim never played paintball. booo hooo.

caliboy1321
05-04-2007, 2:27 PM
Here is the problem with that.... When you go to an airport they ask you to show a state issued ID. Which in the court of law has been declared ILLEGAL and you can now legally board a plan with out a state issued id the process takes longer and you have to deal with the fing idiot of TSA but they are required to let you board the plane. OR you have a case to sue them. If you would like more information on this topic try flyer talk which is a great FF site. And discusses in depth this scenario.





How is requiring somebody to prove their legal status "violating their rights?"

Are your rights being violated when a cop stops you on the freeway and asks you for your driver's license and proof of insurance?

Are your rights being violated when you go to buy a gun and the FFL requires that you show your driver's license to establish residency?

I don't see the difference.

If it would result in the deportation of large numbers of illegals, I'd have no problem whatsoever with cops or INS also asking ME, whitest of whiteys, to provide proof of citizenship.

Solidmch
05-04-2007, 2:49 PM
I wish the police could just be allowed to enforce the law. If someone is illegal then they should be deported. If crowd is refusing several lawfull orders to disperse, and the crowd begins to throw things at the police. I do not have a problem with police using resonable force to make the crowd comply with a lawfull order. I do however have a problem with City officials Monday morning quarterbacking a lawfull practice. What do you think would happen to a group of Americans out of control in say Cancun that refused a police officers lawfull order. Like it or not this is the best country in the world. Do not take it from me. Travel see for yourself how great our police are compared to the rest of the world.

gimebakmybulits
05-04-2007, 3:04 PM
I wish the police could just be allowed to enforce the law. If someone is illegal then they should be deported. If crowd is refusing several lawfull orders to disperse, and the crowd begins to throw things at the police. I do not have a problem with police using resonable force to make the crowd comply with a lawfull order. I do however have a problem with City officials Monday morning quarterbacking a lawfull practice. What do you think would happen to a group of Americans out of control in say Cancun that refused a police officers lawfull order. Like it or not this is the best country in the world. Do not take it from me. Travel see for yourself how great our police are compared to the rest of the world.

Who makes a "lawfull order"? If your actions are legal and you are told to stop by the police does that make it a "lawfull order"? I think not, otherwise go turn in your OLL guns now.

KenpoProfessor
05-04-2007, 3:27 PM
Who makes a "lawfull order"? If your actions are legal and you are told to stop by the police does that make it a "lawfull order"? I think not, otherwise go turn in your OLL guns now.


I was curious about that as well, what is a "lawful order" by police, to disperse in a public venue?

BTW, love the moniker, you must be Skyynrd fan :D

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

StukaJr
05-04-2007, 3:45 PM
So... The LAPD Chief condemned the action, the Mayor condemned the action... Whom is left to take the blame? This was a sanctioned demonstration - a number of individuals provoke the Police and now the entire protest becomes illegal and is ordered to disperse? How the funk does that work? Considering that the Police continues with "less lethal force" into the group that is completely unaware of the action blocks away?

Say I'm walking the dog and get shotgunned in the back with a rubber coated steel ball because someone threw a bottle at the Police a mile down the street... Would I sue the City? You bet!

Serious question though - I see that the LAPD was on the scene with enough beanbag launchers and "rubberized" bullets - what happened to protective riot gear?

Q
05-04-2007, 4:25 PM
When you guys say deport. This was already talked about by top officials and it was said to be too expensive.

I think if they arrested they would have had to deport some which would have cost the city money.

I think they quickly condemned the action because maybe they could be sued by the ones bruised.

Can a undocumented person sue the city of los angeles? probably..Look what happened to the border agents that shot the smuggler.

I am really curious if anyone has or will sue the city of los angeles.

StukaJr
05-04-2007, 4:44 PM
Can a undocumented person sue the city of los angeles? probably..Look what happened to the border agents that shot the smuggler.


Hell yes.



I am really curious if anyone has or will sue the city of los angeles.

How do you think all of those lawyers on the backs of the buses stay in business? Admittance of guilt does not prevent one from a Civil Law Suit - if anything, it will open floodgates for easy settlements... I bet some homies are trying to figure out the best way to fake bruises from the beanbags.

Los Angeles has on average of 90 million dollar budget per year for Police related Lawsuits - I'm quoting a lawyer whom was handling a case for acquaintance of mine...

proraptor
05-04-2007, 4:52 PM
When you guys say deport. This was already talked about by top officials and it was said to be too expensive.

I think if they arrested they would have had to deport some which would have cost the city money.

I think they quickly condemned the action because maybe they could be sued by the ones bruised.

Can a undocumented person sue the city of los angeles? probably..Look what happened to the border agents that shot the smuggler.

I am really curious if anyone has or will sue the city of los angeles.

I will fill my truck up with gas....and haul all of them back to mexico for free....Let me know

BTW: That news person from channel 11 is sueing LA!

pnkssbtz
05-04-2007, 5:25 PM
I am pretty sure that it costs less than $25,000,000.00 to deport them.

The "It costs too much" is a cop out. It costs to much right now but we will save orders of magnitude more money at the end of the year.


Just using the cost numbers from 1992-3 when we only had an estimated 4 million illegals, it was costing us between 9 billion and 25 billion net A YEAR. That is between $450,000.00 to $1,250,000.00 PER ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT lost a year using todays illegal estimates with 1992-3's lost revenue figures.


Please some one explain to me how it costs more than 1.25 billion to deport an single illegal immigrant.

Fate
05-04-2007, 5:55 PM
BTW: That news person from channel 11 is sueing LA!
And when she and the others that file WIN a settlement, who pays? It sure won't be the Mayor or Chief Bratton, the commanders on scene or the individual officers! It'll come out of OUR pockets.

xrMike
05-04-2007, 6:11 PM
...Great nickname!

"What song is it you wanna hear???"

dwtt
05-04-2007, 10:27 PM
Tomorrow is the 5th of May. Be safe out there and avoid those riots.

Draven
05-07-2007, 3:42 AM
Riots won't start until/unless the police are found to have done it all RIGHT....

So, May 31/June 1- is a good day to stay home.

Solidmch
05-07-2007, 7:10 AM
Who makes a "lawfull order"? If your actions are legal and you are told to stop by the police does that make it a "lawfull order"? I think not, otherwise go turn in your OLL guns now.

Unlawfull assembly and refusing to dispurse along with throwing rocks and bottles are ilegal. The crowds actions were not legal! The police were in there rights. The Cheif of police and the Mayor are politicions that are responsible.

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 8:38 AM
Unlawfull assembly and refusing to dispurse along with throwing rocks and bottles are ilegal. The crowds actions were not legal! The police were in there rights. The Cheif of police and the Mayor are politicions that are responsible.

"Unlawfull assembly" says who???

"throwing rocks and bottles" started when ?? HE said She said argument.

Again you are not seeing the forest for the trees, forget about "who" was there and focus on what happens when you use your RIGHT to ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference

Kestryll
05-07-2007, 9:32 AM
Your right to assemble does not give you the right to impede, harass or assault.
Whether you like it or not, and frankly it doesn't matter for squat if you don't, protests, demonstrations, rallies, 'assemblies' or other forms of mass gatherings have to acquire a permit, have to follow rules and are required to disperse when it becomes a threat to public safety.
Nowhere does it say that excercising your First Amendment rights puts you above the law.

The most vivid description I've heard has not been from a protestor nor a police officer. It came from a reporter who watched as several protestors, prior to police action, removed bottles from backpacks and threw them at police. The reporter said based on smell and reaction these bottles had been prepared in advance. How many people carry bottles of ammonia, bleach or urine around as a daily occurence?
But hey, it's cool right? They were just 'expressing themselves' right?

leelaw
05-07-2007, 10:03 AM
"Unlawfull assembly" says who???

"throwing rocks and bottles" started when ?? HE said She said argument.

Again you are not seeing the forest for the trees, forget about "who" was there and focus on what happens when you use your RIGHT to ASSEMBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference

Thanks for mentioning the relevant Constitutional Amendment. Please allow me to highlight the few words you seemed to have glossed over.

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 11:23 AM
Thanks for mentioning the relevant Constitutional Amendment. Please allow me to highlight the few words you seemed to have glossed over.

I'm not glossing anything over. Do you know who started the violence?????? I'm not recommending responding with violence, but what if our fore-fathers had been non-confrontational. Our signatures would read "God Save The Queen" :)
Please look past the bias towards the crowd.

leelaw
05-07-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm not glossing anything over. Do you know who started the violence?????? I'm not recommending responding with violence, but what if our fore-fathers had been non-confrontational. Our signatures would read "God Save The Queen" :)
Please look past the bias towards the crowd.

Are you suggesting that you know who started the violence?

Maybe it was the police who brought the bottles..

Maybe the police forced the protesters out of the park and into the streets, just so they could get some good stick action..

Or maybe it happened like it was reported - peaceful assembly turns violent against police, police disperse crowd, crowd resists, some people get attitude adjustments for refusing compliance to lawful dispersement.

I'm not biased towards the crowd, just those who isntigated the violence - they were the bad apples that ruined the bunch, and I don't appreciate you suggesting racial biases on my part.

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 12:22 PM
I'm not glossing anything over. Do you know who started the violence?????? I'm not recommending responding with violence, but what if our fore-fathers had been non-confrontational. Our signatures would read "God Save The Queen" :)
Please look past the bias towards the crowd.

Actually, lets flip that question back to you; Do you "know" who started the violence?

And by "know" I am mean have factual evidence and/or personally witness the events.

One can deduce from the methods and implications behind your questions and concerns that it is of your opinion that the LAPD intentionally sought out these instigators for the explicit purpose of a violent outcome or preemptively attacked the crowds.


As to our forefathers being non-confrontational, that is a completely different situation.

In the case of our forefathers it was oppression and subjugation by a foreign ruler in a foreign land over 5,000 miles away.

In the case of the illegal immigrants, they entered a country full well knowing the legalities of their presence there and instead of legally obtaining residency they chose to defy said laws and steal from other people to keep up their facade. We have legal ways for them to voice their displeasure and ratify our government and law to their benefit. Some are choosing to do so. Others are displaying anarchistic violent behavior. Unfortunately those who display the violent anarchistic behavior cause the rest of the people and the cause they were organizing for to be viewed in a less than favorable light.

Personally, I would be more upset at these violent anarchists than the LEO because if they did not carry out their actions none of this would of happened.


No one here is saying the entire people that amassed for the rally were violent. Not a single person here. However it is undeniable that certain elements did become violent and intentionally provoked the police and then hid within the crowd.

How is a police officer supposed to distinguish a law abiding citizen from a radical violent anarchist in a crowd of 10,000 people?

That is impossible. So when violent anarchist attack police and then duck and hide, the only thing the police can do is disperse the crowd.

cadurand
05-07-2007, 1:15 PM
You are all missing the real problem here.

When cops have the tactical advantage they'll come in firing. Smack some unarmed protesters around with clubs and shoot at them with rubber bullets. All the while they're behind plexis glass shields and wearing helmets. The occasional rock or bottles get them but the cops still have the advantage.

But, if some psycho goes into a school and starts shooting those same cops will hide behind their cars, duck with every shot fired, and set up barricades and wait for the bad guy to kill himself.. then wait some more while the victims bleed to death.

It amazes me when a shooting happens and you see all the cops in their neato SWAT-type equipment just standing around. I mean once the gunman kills hismelf why do the cops still need to walk around with their AR-15's they never even fired? Go put it back in the trunk and get some body bags, make yourselves useful.

If the bad guy is shooting people RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE and try to take him out. I know it's dangerous but that's the job you signed up for. If heaven forbid someone from my family were in a classroom with a nutcase shooting it up I'd be really mad seeing dozens of police officers setting up a perimeter and waiting it out.

kilword
05-07-2007, 1:39 PM
i actually said "wow!" when I saw riot cops batoned a 12 year old boy that was just standing there in the legs and he fell to the ground and they grabbed him up and shoved him along to get going

Solidmch
05-07-2007, 1:43 PM
Your right to assemble does not give you the right to impede, harass or assault.
Whether you like it or not, and frankly it doesn't matter for squat if you don't, protests, demonstrations, rallies, 'assemblies' or other forms of mass gatherings have to acquire a permit, have to follow rules and are required to disperse when it becomes a threat to public safety.
Nowhere does it say that excercising your First Amendment rights puts you above the law.

The most vivid description I've heard has not been from a protestor nor a police officer. It came from a reporter who watched as several protestors, prior to police action, removed bottles from backpacks and threw them at police. The reporter said based on smell and reaction these bottles had been prepared in advance. How many people carry bottles of ammonia, bleach or urine around as a daily occurence?
But hey, it's cool right? They were just 'expressing themselves' right?

+1 on that!

Solidmch
05-07-2007, 1:45 PM
You are all missing the real problem here.

When cops have the tactical advantage they'll come in firing. Smack some unarmed protesters around with clubs and shoot at them with rubber bullets. All the while they're behind plexis glass shields and wearing helmets. The occasional rock or bottles get them but the cops still have the advantage.

But, if some psycho goes into a school and starts shooting those same cops will hide behind their cars, duck with every shot fired, and set up barricades and wait for the bad guy to kill himself.. then wait some more while the victims bleed to death.

It amazes me when a shooting happens and you see all the cops in their neato SWAT-type equipment just standing around. I mean once the gunman kills hismelf why do the cops still need to walk around with their AR-15's they never even fired? Go put it back in the trunk and get some body bags, make yourselves useful.

If the bad guy is shooting people RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE and try to take him out. I know it's dangerous but that's the job you signed up for. If heaven forbid someone from my family were in a classroom with a nutcase shooting it up I'd be really mad seeing dozens of police officers setting up a perimeter and waiting it out.



Sorry the police do not have to fight fair. They do however have rules. These cops seemed to be following standard text book practices for a violent and hostile crowd that refuses a lawfull order to dispurse.

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 1:52 PM
You are all missing the real problem here.

When cops have the tactical advantage they'll come in firing. Smack some unarmed protesters around with clubs and shoot at them with rubber bullets. All the while they're behind plexis glass shields and wearing helmets. The occasional rock or bottles get them but the cops still have the advantage.They wear that gear because rocks and bottles thrown en mass can and has historically destroyed armies. Further human propelled objects can be reliably stopped with the protective gear and except for rare cases are never fatal when the proper gear is used.

But, if some psycho goes into a school and starts shooting those same cops will hide behind their cars, duck with every shot fired, and set up barricades and wait for the bad guy to kill himself.. then wait some more while the victims bleed to death.Guns differ than human propelled objects.

Also rushing into to a situation involving armed assailants can be catastrophically detrimental.

First, the LEO storming the building could trigger a sense of panic in the assailants causing them to discard any hostages they may have (and by discard I mean execute).

The assailants could have an ambush set up, so the rushing officers would run in, get killed and provide more guns and ammo for the assailaints.

The difference between the two situations is that with a crowd, a riot gear equipped cop has a reasonable expectation of what to face. Where as a cop responding to an armed assailant does not know the situation and as such can not weigh the risks and options accurately.

This is like comparing apples to a half ton piece of pig iron.


It amazes me when a shooting happens and you see all the cops in their neato SWAT-type equipment just standing around. I mean once the gunman kills hismelf why do the cops still need to walk around with their AR-15's they never even fired? Go put it back in the trunk and get some body bags, make yourselves useful.Because the area has not been cleared. They continue with gear because a hidden assailant could still be around. And there could be other accomplices that were unknown initially. It is standard operating procedure in any hostile environment. "Standing around" is keeping an eye on the area to make sure nothing jumps out and goes "bang."

If the bad guy is shooting people RUN TOWARDS THE GUNFIRE and try to take him out. I know it's dangerous but that's the job you signed up for. If heaven forbid someone from my family were in a classroom with a nutcase shooting it up I'd be really mad seeing dozens of police officers setting up a perimeter and waiting it out.If the badguy is shooting, suppress and flank while utilizing cover. Running towards the gunfire is a good way to get dead.

Please see previous explanation on why you shouldn't rush an unarmed assailant with little or no information.

Solidmch
05-07-2007, 1:56 PM
They wear that gear because rocks and bottles thrown en mass can and has historically destroyed armies. Further human propelled objects can be reliably stopped with the protective gear and except for rare cases are never fatal when the proper gear is used.

Guns differ than human propelled objects.

Also rushing into to a situation involving armed assailants can be catastrophically detrimental.

First, the LEO storming the building could trigger a sense of panic in the assailants causing them to discard any hostages they may have (and by discard I mean execute).

The assailants could have an ambush set up, so the rushing officers would run in, get killed and provide more guns and ammo for the assailaints.

The difference between the two situations is that with a crowd, a riot gear equipped cop has a reasonable expectation of what to face. Where as a cop responding to an armed assailant does not know the situation and as such can not weigh the risks and options accurately.

This is like comparing apples to a half ton piece of pig iron.


Because the area has not been cleared. They continue with gear because a hidden assailant could still be around. And there could be other accomplices that were unknown initially. It is standard operating procedure in any hostile environment. "Standing around" is keeping an eye on the area to make sure nothing jumps out and goes "bang."

If the badguy is shooting, suppress and flank while utilizing cover. Running towards the gunfire is a good way to get dead.

Please see previous explanation on why you shouldn't rush an unarmed assailant with little or no information.


Well put!

STAGE 2
05-07-2007, 3:08 PM
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." .. I know I heard that somewhere before.

You guys so are blinded by your hatred of illegals that you dont realize you're "Paper please" approach would be detrimental to the liberty of legal citizens.

First, officers can ask anyone anything they want. A persons rights are not violated because a leo asks me a question. If I bothered to scan the constitution I know that I don't have to say anything. If I'm dumb enough to answer then I've waived my rights and I have no one to blame but myself. The system works both ways and most people don't want to acknowledge this.

Second, there is no violation of ANYONE'S rights when an leo asks you for identification when in public. SCOTUS has dealt with this and likely every city in america has some municipal laws dealing with this.

So with that in mind, if ICE or lapd wanted to walk amongst the crowd and talk to people to develop PC thats fine. The constitution has no problem with that. You can't develop PC simply because someone is "mexican", however if someone doesn't speak english, and are at an immigration rally, I'd say thats plenty to detain them for further questioning.

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 3:12 PM
Second, there is no violation of ANYONE'S rights when an leo asks you for identification when in public. SCOTUS has dealt with this and likely every city in america has some municipal laws dealing with this.

Except that IIRC there was a SCOTUS ruling in regards to having to present ID to board a plane. I don't know how that interacts with an officer asking for ID, but it is something to note.

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:14 PM
First, officers can ask anyone anything they want. A persons rights are not violated because a leo asks me a question. If I bothered to scan the constitution I know that I don't have to say anything. If I'm dumb enough to answer then I've waived my rights and I have no one to blame but myself. The system works both ways and most people don't want to acknowledge this.

Second, there is no violation of ANYONE'S rights when an leo asks you for identification when in public. SCOTUS has dealt with this and likely every city in america has some municipal laws dealing with this.

So with that in mind, if ICE or lapd wanted to walk amongst the crowd and talk to people to develop PC thats fine. The constitution has no problem with that. You can't develop PC simply because someone is "mexican", however if someone doesn't speak english, and are at an immigration rally, I'd say thats plenty to detain them for further questioning.

Where is it written that a person has to speak English? Is participating in an
immigration rally against the law? That's not PC for anything. That's like saying because you have a gun in the car, you're on your way to shoot someone. Dont be suprised if the heavy handed tactics you want used against others are one day flipped around and used on you.

I guarantee if LEOs went around demanding ID or proof that your guns were legal while you were engaged in legal activity, there'd be 1000 threads on here *****ing and moaning about how we're in a police state.. yet you guys see no problem with demanding papers from people?

Funny how everyone's always so up in arms about the 2nd Amendment, that they forget about the other ones.

SemiAutoSam
05-07-2007, 4:20 PM
Not from people from illegal aliens IE Criminals or don't you agree that they are criminals ?

Maybe you can come up with a better way to collect them and send them back to their point of origin ?

I'm all ears to your suggestions on how we can suggest to our so called representatives on how to best accomplish this task.

Whats wrong with speaking the language of the country you are illegally in ?

If they did speak English they would at least blend in better and have less of a chance of getting their asses tossed back to Mexico.




Where is it written that a person has to speak English? Is participating in an
immigration rally against the law? That's not PC for anything. That's like saying because you have a gun in the car, you're on your way to shoot someone. Don't be surprised if the heavy handed tactics you want used against others are one day flipped around and used on you.

I guarantee if LEOs went around demanding ID or proof that your guns were legal while you were engaged in legal activity, there'd be 1000 threads on here *****ing and moaning about how we're in a police state.. yet you guys see no problem with demanding papers from people?

Funny how everyone's always so up in arms about the 2nd Amendment, that they forget about the other ones.

Cato
05-07-2007, 4:20 PM
How are they supposed to determine who is illegal or not? Are they supposed to go up to every brown person and demand proof of citizenship? I'd rather not trample on the rights of American citizens who are practicing their 1st Amendment rights just to catch illegals. The ends do no justify the means.



"trample on the rights of American citizens?"


That was a celebration of Mexican nationalism. What kind of American would march in support of illegal immigration and Brown pride?

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:25 PM
Not from people from illegal aliens IE Criminals or don't you agree that they are criminals ?


How the hell do you know who is illegal or not? There's more Hispanic citizens in this country than Blacks these days. How do you seperate Legal Hispanic citizens from Illegals? Im not concerned with the rights of illegals. Im concerned with you guys advocating that the cops come down hard on everyone who is brown. That's like saying the cops should come down hard on all gun owners because there's a number of gun owners out there breaking the law. Sure, that might be a way to get to those who are breaking the law, but what about those who havent broken any laws?


Maybe you can come up with a better way to collect them and send them back to their point of origin ?

I'm all ears to your suggestions on how we can suggest to our so called representatives on how to best accomplish this task.


I dont have a better solution. I know rounding brown people up and asking for papers isnt a solution though.


Whats wrong with speaking the language of the country you are illegally in ?


Nowhere is it written that anyone has to speak any specific language. I could speak Swahili if I wanted to and be well within that law.

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:27 PM
"trample on the rights of American citizens?"


That was a celebration of Mexican nationalism. What kind of American would march in support of illegal immigration and Brown pride?

People can celebrate whatever the hell they want as long as they're within the law. The Klan can march down the street with confederate flags and swaztikas and they'd be well within their right to do so.

1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.. Look it up.

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 4:32 PM
Are you suggesting that you know who started the violence?

Maybe it was the police who brought the bottles..

Maybe the police forced the protesters out of the park and into the streets, just so they could get some good stick action..

Or maybe it happened like it was reported - peaceful assembly turns violent against police, police disperse crowd, crowd resists, some people get attitude adjustments for refusing compliance to lawful dispersement.

I'm not biased towards the crowd, just those who isntigated the violence - they were the bad apples that ruined the bunch, and I don't appreciate you suggesting racial biases on my part.
First of all I suggest nothing other than bias against the crowd, which has been labeled “illegal’s” so please don’t infer anything other than that as in “to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective”.

As for who started it no one on this entire forum can answer that. Given the fact that similar crowds gathered in other places without the escalation of force by the police, I feel that the outcome could have been different.

And how about “attitude adjustments”, did that camera man get the attitude adjustment he deserved???? If you allow one innocent person to be collateral damage then hey why not BWO, or the next guy who gets popped for his OLL? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, cause that chipping sound you hear is your Bill of Rights getting hammered away. Just remember “innocent until proven guilty”.

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:36 PM
If you allow one innocent person to be collateral damage then hey why not BWO, or the next guy who gets popped for his OLL? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, cause that chipping sound you hear is your Bill of Rights getting hammered away. Just remember “innocent until proven guilty”.

At least someone gets it.

KenpoProfessor
05-07-2007, 4:40 PM
Nowhere is it written that anyone has to speak any specific language. I could speak Swahili if I wanted to and be well within that law.



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWcrawford/prop63.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States
of America and the State of California. This section is intended to
preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to
supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this
Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate
legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of
California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of
English as the common language of the State of California is
preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which
diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of
the State of California.
(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of
California shall have standing to sue the State of California to
enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of
California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce
this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate
limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this
section.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 4:40 PM
BTW people did someone take a poll at the rally??? I’m seeing a disturbing trend here of labeling, lets turn things around a bit.

Hey Sally look at them there people with their machine guns, they must be those GUN NUTS everyone is talking about. Who needs a machine gun, hell all they are good for is shootin people up, so we should just get rid of em.

Think about it, no one know how many illegals were at the rally so quit justifying it with that label.

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:43 PM
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWcrawford/prop63.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States
of America and the State of California. This section is intended to
preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to
supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this
Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate
legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of
California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of
English as the common language of the State of California is
preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which
diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of
the State of California.
(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of
California shall have standing to sue the State of California to
enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of
California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce
this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate
limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this
section.


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Ummm ok.. where does it say people in the California must speak English?

KenpoProfessor
05-07-2007, 4:47 PM
Ummm ok.. where does it say people in the California must speak English?

Sure does open the possibility of being sued if you don't speak English to me. I might try that one of these days.


And for those businesses advertising for Bi-lingual, they are using unconstitutional hiring practices in the State and could be sued as well.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 4:49 PM
Yea.. right.. good luck with that.

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 4:50 PM
Sure does open the possibility of being sued if you don't speak English to me. I might try that one of these days.


And for those businesses advertising for Bi-lingual, they are using unconstitutional hiring practices in the State and could be sued as well.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Kind of like the CA DMV:) :D or any DMV for that matter

KenpoProfessor
05-07-2007, 4:51 PM
Yea.. right.. good luck with that.

Well, the Twinkie defense worked and that woman won thousands of $$ from Mickey D's for hot coffee in her lap that was her own fault. Does leave the possibilities open.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

SemiAutoSam
05-07-2007, 4:57 PM
Not that they must speak english but that english is the common language of California. Have a look at the highlighted areas in red.

This text came from the link below.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 2. The boundaries of the State are those stated in the
Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is
the capital of California.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 3. The powers of state government are legislative, executive,
and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not
exercise either of the others except as permitted by this
Constitution.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), salaries of
elected state officers may not be reduced during their term of
office. Laws that set these salaries are appropriations.
(b) Beginning on January 1, 1981, the base salary of a judge of a
court of record shall equal the annual salary payable as of July 1,
1980, for that office had the judge been elected in 1978. The
Legislature may prescribe increases in those salaries during a term
of office, and it may terminate prospective increases in those
salaries at any time during a term of office, but it shall not reduce
the salary of a judge during a term of office below the highest
level paid during that term of office. Laws setting the salaries of
judges shall not constitute an obligation of contract pursuant to
Section 9 of Article I or any other provision of law.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 5. Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and
in such courts as shall be directed by law.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States
of America and the State of California. This section is intended to
preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to
supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this
Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate
legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of
California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of
English as the common language of the State of California is
preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which
diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of
the State of California.
(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of
California shall have standing to sue the State of California to
enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of
California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce
this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate
limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this
section.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Sec. 7. (a) The retirement allowance for any person, all of whose
credited service in the Legislators' Retirement System was rendered
or was deemed to have been rendered as an elective officer of the
State whose office is provided for by the California Constitution,
other than a judge and other than a Member of the Senate or Assembly,
and all or any part of whose retirement allowance is calculated on
the basis of the compensation payable to the officer holding the
office which the member last held prior to retirement, or for the
survivor or beneficiary of such a person, shall not be increased or
affected in any manner by changes on or after November 5, 1986, in
the compensation payable to the officer holding the office which the
member last held prior to retirement.
(b) This section shall apply to any person, survivor, or
beneficiary described in subdivision (a) who receives, or is
receiving, from the Legislators' Retirement System a retirement
allowance on or after November 5, 1986, all or any part of which
allowance is calculated on the basis of the compensation payable to
the officer holding the office which the member last held prior to
retirement.
(c) It is the intent of the people, in adopting this section, to
restrict retirement allowances to amounts reasonably to be expected
by certain members and retired members of the Legislators' Retirement
System and to preserve the basic character of earned retirement
benefits while prohibiting windfalls and unforeseen advantages which
have no relation to the real theory and objective of a sound
retirement system. It is not the intent of this section to deny any
member, retired member, survivor, or beneficiary a reasonable
retirement allowance. Thus, this section shall not be construed as a
repudiation of a debt nor the impairment of a contract for a
substantial and reasonable retirement allowance from the Legislators'
Retirement System.
(d) The people and the Legislature hereby find and declare that
the dramatic increase in the retirement allowances of persons
described in subdivision (a) which would otherwise result when the
compensation for those offices increases on November 5, 1986, or
January 5, 1987, are not benefits which could have reasonably been
expected. The people and the Legislature further find and declare
that the Legislature did not intend to provide in its scheme of
compensation for those offices such windfall benefits.

















Ummm ok.. where does it say people in the California must speak English?

jumbopanda
05-07-2007, 5:00 PM
Well, the Twinkie defense worked and that woman won millions from Mickey D's for hot coffee in her lap that was her own fault. Does leave the possibilities open.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Actually in the McDonald's coffee burn lawsuit, the lady was awarded $640,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, which was appealed by both parties. In the end they settled for less than $600,000. Still a ton of money for something that was the lady's own fault though.

50 Freak
05-07-2007, 5:14 PM
I can't believe the crap some of the posters here have said.

You guys all "believe" that we should fight the good fight for the 2nd and that our Consitutional Rights are sacred....Have you thought of the Right to a Free Press????

Some of you guys are advocating beating up the press because they were at the "wrong" place. Hate to tell you kids, but that's the Press's sacred duty. To be at the wrong place and to report everything to the public. That way we as a people can keep our government in check. That this especially applies to our local police departments. I wonder what you guys would have said about Woodward and Burnstein.

Some of you guys also "wish" for Darryl Gates to be back in power. Have you guys even met Darryl Gates. I have and I found him to be an elitist racist SOB.

You guys all need to go back to History 101 and really think over your mindset.

leelaw
05-07-2007, 5:17 PM
Actually in the McDonald's coffee burn lawsuit, the lady was awarded $640,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, which was appealed by both parties. In the end they settled for less than $600,000. Still a ton of money for something that was the lady's own fault though.

McDonalds was found to be at fault because the coffee was much hotter than McDonald's own internal policy regarding the regulating of the coffee temperatures. If the McDonalds followed it's own policy, the burn would not have happened as it did, and the lady's case would have been baseless.

50 Freak
05-07-2007, 5:18 PM
Actually in the McDonald's coffee burn lawsuit, the lady was awarded $640,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, which was appealed by both parties. In the end they settled for less than $600,000. Still a ton of money for something that was the lady's own fault though.

People cite this case many times, but do you guys know that that particular McDonalds had be cited many many times for having a coffee machine that made the temp of the coffee way too hot. They never bothered fixing that coffee machine and as a result that little old lady had 3rd degree burns all over her "private" area.

Think you want 3rd degree burns all over your private area? Think that $600K is enough to compensate you for the months and months of pain and rehabilitation. Two sides to every story guys.

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 5:32 PM
I can't believe the crap some of the posters here have said.

You guys all "believe" that we should fight the good fight for the 2nd and that our Consitutional Rights are sacred....Have you thought of the Right to a Free Press????

Woah there..! In targeting an absolute group and making a statement declaring the opinion of said absolute group, who told you what I "believe"? And since I am included in your absolute, and an absolute cannot be true if it has exceptions, that means that your assumption that "you guys all believe XXX" is a fallacy since I do not believe what you claim I believe.

No one is saying that the Press should be oppressed. Further, in this day and age, having a camera and a microphone does not make you "press." I'd like to see you try and get into the white house during a press release with just a camera and a mic.


Some of you guys are advocating beating up the press because they were at the "wrong" place. Hate to tell you kids, but that's the Press's sacred duty. To be at the wrong place and to report everything to the public. That way we as a people can keep our government in check. That this especially applies to our local police departments. I wonder what you guys would have said about Woodward and Burnstein.So, its ok if the press runs into the middle of a shoot out with a bunch of criminals? And its the cop's fault if they get caught in the cross fire? How is this any different?

I reiterate again; having a camera and a mic does not make you "press."

And you are right, it is the presses job to be at the wrong place and report everything to the public. And when was the last time you saw the press be honest, unbiased and report everything?

Do you see any of the videos of the violent anarchist assaulting the police with liquid containers containing volatile or bodily fluids? What about the video of the rocks being thrown and the 10+ police being taken out on stretchers?

Some of you guys also "wish" for Darryl Gates to be back in power. Have you guys even met Darryl Gates. I have and I found him to be an elitist racist SOB.What the heck are you talking about? This is called "Drawing conclusions from non social stimuli." You need to unplug and calm down. Who the heck said anything about Darryl Gates?

You guys all need to go back to History 101 and really think over your mindset.
Luke 6:41-42

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 5:36 PM
People cite this case many times, but do you guys know that that particular McDonalds had be cited many many times for having a coffee machine that made the temp of the coffee way too hot. They never bothered fixing that coffee machine and as a result that little old lady had 3rd degree burns all over her "private" area.

Think you want 3rd degree burns all over your private area? Think that $600K is enough to compensate you for the months and months of pain and rehabilitation. Two sides to every story guys.

First the woman in question demanded hot coffee. Second who poured it on her own lap?

It is COFFEE. It is expected to be served at or near boiling temperature.


Thats like me going to a car sales lot and buying "the fastest car they have" and then totaling it while speeding and getting injured.

Who's fault is it?

gimebakmybulits
05-07-2007, 5:44 PM
First the woman in question demanded hot coffee. Second who poured it on her own lap?

It is COFFEE. It is expected to be served at or near boiling temperature.


Thats like me going to a car sales lot and buying "the fastest car they have" and then totaling it while speeding and getting injured.

Who's fault is it?

Please go read the findings of the court. The coffee was scalding not by her choice but by the policy of MacDonalds, yes she accidentally spilled the coffee but MacD's scalded her. Go ahead, I'll watch you drink 212 degree coffee.

pnkssbtz
05-07-2007, 6:16 PM
Go ahead, I'll watch you drink 212 degree coffee.

National Coffee Association of U.S.A. (http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71)
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.

It is COFFEE. It is expected to be served at or near boiling temperature.


According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case) they state that the coffee in question was at 180˚f.


But this is all beside the point.

STAGE 2
05-07-2007, 10:34 PM
Where is it written that a person has to speak English? Is participating in an
immigration rally against the law? That's not PC for anything. That's like saying because you have a gun in the car, you're on your way to shoot someone.

No its really not. You can pick that hill to die on, but both you and I know that if the cops started a conversation with a mexican male at a rally for illegal immigrants rights, who could not speak english and then had no proof of ID then thats more then enough to detain him.

This is NOT analogous to your gun hypothetical because driving with a gun isnt by itself illegal. A proper analogy would be if you had a gun in your car, had expired tags and smelled of pot.

You may have a personal issue with it, but the constitution would not be violated if ICE wanted to go after people who attended these rallys. Its like when the ATF goes to gun shows. If you're dumb enough to go there and break the law then you've no one to blame but yourself.

Crazed_SS
05-07-2007, 11:24 PM
Expired tags and smoking pot is against the law. Being Hispanic and speaking Spanish is not. There is no PC to detain someone there.. You cant assume someone is an illegal alien based on skin color, language, etc. There's a lot of Asians who speak a different language. Go down to Chinatown in Oakland and they have street signs in Chinese. Does that mean the entire community should be rounded up and forced to produce papers? If someone was at the rally looking to buy social security numbers, that might be PC to detain someone and investigate them for being illegal.

Everyone cries about the cops arresting BWO for what was seemingly perfectly legal activity.. yet you want other people to be arrested when they're engaged in perfectly legal activity.. just becaue there *MIGHT* be illegals among them?

Maybe BWO deserved to be arrested.. even though he didnt do anything wrong, he *MIGHT* have been breaking some law. Better safe than sorry.. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about... right?

I see how it is. Civil Liberties be damned.. whatever it takes to get to the criminals right?

EDIT: Also, a CA DL or ID is not proof of citizenship. Just because someone has a DL does not mean they're legal or vice versa.. You need a Birth Certificate or something like that to prove citizenship. How many people here carry around their birth certificate?

STAGE 2
05-08-2007, 12:33 AM
Expired tags and smoking pot is against the law. Being Hispanic and speaking Spanish is not.

I never said speaking spanish was against the law, or that it would amount to PC. What I said was not being able to speak english and not having any documentation or identification. Thats a BIG difference, and its one you keep glossing over.

If those criteria are met, there isn't anything you can complain about if the police decide to detain that particular person.

simonov
05-14-2007, 11:58 AM
These people are illegal and have no rights in my country.....

I think you need to give the US Constitution another read.

Here's a helpful link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

leelaw
05-14-2007, 12:24 PM
National Coffee Association of U.S.A. (http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71)

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case) they state that the coffee in question was at 180˚f.

But this is all beside the point.

Coffee is not expected to be served at or near boiling temperatures. The temperature of extraction (ie: just getting the flavors) is higher than the temperature at which it is consumed.

You don't drink coffee as it's dripping from the espresso machine, do you?