Unless your an actual ICE officer and it's your job, there's no other real reason to do it.Maybe I missed something but I don't recall anyone saying they did it to get their jollies.
Unless your an actual ICE officer and it's your job, there's no other real reason to do it.Maybe I missed something but I don't recall anyone saying they did it to get their jollies.
You would be in favor of the government sterilizing people against their will?
I am very glad to hear thatNo. I wouldn't.
I am very glad to hear that
I'm reasonably sure that anyone who wants to, men and women both, can undergo voluntary sterilization. I know that at least in men it can be reversed.I think voluntary steralization would be great idea. If you could reverse it then i would be even better. I would bet there would be people lining up to get it done. The drawback would be more STDs though.
Sure, I have no problem with clarifying. I will use my state as an example. If AZ wanted to add an amendment to our welfare system requiring a person (woman would be the easiest example) to have her tubes tied to maintain certain welfare benefits, let's say after she has 3 kids in the welfare system. This is the type of scenario I was refering to. I think it is a fair trade and it would save the state potentially millions over the years. This is a very basic scenario. Their choice.I would have no issues what so ever with supporting a sterilization program.
That sounds pretty cut and dried, yet when Jones asked you if you would be in favor of the govt sterilizing people against their will, you said:
No, I wouldn't.
Care to clarify your original statement?
Well you had to pay for it out of pocket if your poor since its not a normal procedure like removing your appendix so i would assume that the poor did not have the money to pay for it if the wanted to. I wonder now under Obamacare if they can get it done for free per taxpayers expense. I actually might be for that since that would save money in the long run and cut down on unwanted pregnecies and abortions.
It had already been a Federal law.......it's just that the federal people didn't do their job, imagine that!
Could it be that they realized it was a flawed piece of legislation which would cost more in litigation than in the money saved by enforcing it?
Tensions are already high between the illegals and law enforcement and enacting this law will be akin to throwing gasoline on to a BBQ.
A deputy in Arizona was shot by a drug smuggler when he discovered bales of marijuana sitting in the desert and went to investigate.
So if the anit imigration bill was not singed then the cop would have not been shot?
Dave, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way but it sounds like you are saying the blame for the shooting of our Pinal County Deputy is to be blamed on this new legislation. Just my gut reaction to your statement but I really don't think you meant it that way.Could it be that they realized it was a flawed piece of legislation which would cost more in litigation than in the money saved by enforcing it?
Tensions are already high between the illegals and law enforcement and enacting this law will be akin to throwing gasoline on to a BBQ.
A deputy in Arizona was shot by a drug smuggler when he discovered bales of marijuana sitting in the desert and went to investigate.
Dave, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way but it sounds like you are saying the blame for the shooting of our Pinal County Deputy is to be blamed on this new legislation. Just my gut reaction to your statement but I really don't think you meant it that way.
Of course not but why add even more fuel to the fire?