trplnkl
555
Go back and read again my friend. But, first read my untouchable little babies: The Bill of Rights. From 1 to 10. And if you have time, Amendment 14th, Plyler v. Doe, Wong Wing v. U.S, Yick Wo v. Hopkins. And I still have a few more, but I won't overwhelm you with so much reading. I've cited your wrong statements saying "that illegals didn't have rights, and that they deserve to be discriminated," just to name a few.
I never said nor implied, "that illegals didn't have rights, and that they deserve to be discriminated,”
I said that the law did not violate the Constitutional rights of illegals.
I pointed you out that illegal aliens also had individual rights under any jurisdiction, now, do I have to cite you the 14th Amendment in this.
This law does not
Well, just saying a law is being violated isn’t much to go on.
You don't know what is racism?
Of course I know what racism is, but I’m not sure you do. Do you know the difference in race and nationality?
Racial profiling, etc., and that it isn't permitted by law.
Racial profiling is expressly disallowed in SB1070, it specifically mentions so in several places.
I thought you did know our Constitution. You seem to be a Patriotic US Citizen, but the problem is that you don't know the Constitution and what it implies. May be if you did, you would think in a different way...
Maybe if you knew it as well as you say you do, you would be thinking different.
oh no, sorry, your prejudice and your political affiliations won't let you.
You have seen no prejudiced statements from me. I have never viewed this as a race issue, but an issue of people being in our country illegally and all the problems that follow.
I've cited SB1070, you tell me "that's not what it implies." I thought you were going to tell me how it doesn't.
You will not do MY research. You will do YOURS, and tell me how it's not what it implies what I said.
Sorry I don’t remember the context of the statement "that's not what it implies." , and I’m not going to look it up.
And please, although I have zero tolerance about anyone touching my Bill of Rights, I want to know your point of view on the part of "Reasonable Suspicion,"
Reasonable suspicion would/could come from anyone not having the legal IDs required of any person. It’s pretty simple really, if pulled over for a traffic violation and the subject has no ID whatsoever, it is reasonable to suspect that individual has something to hide, including being an illegal alien and there will be further investigation.
"The "solely," color, race, nationality," etc. crap. I've cited you part of the law, but you haven't explain me your point of view on how my statements don't imply to the law. I thought you were going to place the rest of the law (the rest that you said I ignore) and explain how in the world they write something like the "solely," color, race, or national origin, and all that stuff.
The word “solely” was used in the original text of the law, and then taken out. I would guess maybe because of the taking that one word to twist the sentence to mean that R,C and national origin could be considered as reasonable cause to pull someone over which is NOT the intent of the law. With the wording of the law including the anti-profiling language some many different places and time, it’s pretty obvious that stopping someone based on R,C or NO is not allowed.
No problem dude, you can mention me in any post if that's what you want, then.
Sure not a problem, still don’t need your permission.
I never said nor implied, "that illegals didn't have rights, and that they deserve to be discriminated,”
I said that the law did not violate the Constitutional rights of illegals.
I pointed you out that illegal aliens also had individual rights under any jurisdiction, now, do I have to cite you the 14th Amendment in this.
This law does not
And do I have to cite you the laws been violated on every single statement I give you.
Well, just saying a law is being violated isn’t much to go on.
You don't know what is racism?
Of course I know what racism is, but I’m not sure you do. Do you know the difference in race and nationality?
Racial profiling, etc., and that it isn't permitted by law.
Racial profiling is expressly disallowed in SB1070, it specifically mentions so in several places.
I thought you did know our Constitution. You seem to be a Patriotic US Citizen, but the problem is that you don't know the Constitution and what it implies. May be if you did, you would think in a different way...
Maybe if you knew it as well as you say you do, you would be thinking different.
oh no, sorry, your prejudice and your political affiliations won't let you.
You have seen no prejudiced statements from me. I have never viewed this as a race issue, but an issue of people being in our country illegally and all the problems that follow.
I've cited SB1070, you tell me "that's not what it implies." I thought you were going to tell me how it doesn't.
You will not do MY research. You will do YOURS, and tell me how it's not what it implies what I said.
Sorry I don’t remember the context of the statement "that's not what it implies." , and I’m not going to look it up.
And please, although I have zero tolerance about anyone touching my Bill of Rights, I want to know your point of view on the part of "Reasonable Suspicion,"
Reasonable suspicion would/could come from anyone not having the legal IDs required of any person. It’s pretty simple really, if pulled over for a traffic violation and the subject has no ID whatsoever, it is reasonable to suspect that individual has something to hide, including being an illegal alien and there will be further investigation.
"The "solely," color, race, nationality," etc. crap. I've cited you part of the law, but you haven't explain me your point of view on how my statements don't imply to the law. I thought you were going to place the rest of the law (the rest that you said I ignore) and explain how in the world they write something like the "solely," color, race, or national origin, and all that stuff.
The word “solely” was used in the original text of the law, and then taken out. I would guess maybe because of the taking that one word to twist the sentence to mean that R,C and national origin could be considered as reasonable cause to pull someone over which is NOT the intent of the law. With the wording of the law including the anti-profiling language some many different places and time, it’s pretty obvious that stopping someone based on R,C or NO is not allowed.
No problem dude, you can mention me in any post if that's what you want, then.
Sure not a problem, still don’t need your permission.
