Home
Steadily, and tenaciously, we carve our way into the issue of State's Rights.

"Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request."


This is the real deal, folks.

GTC

Quote
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...IQAhEkeUN_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Justice Dept. dispute with Alabama over illegal-immigration law intensifies

By Jerry Markon, Published: November 17

The Obama administration�s legal campaign against restrictive state immigration laws has led to a bitter standoff in Alabama, where Justice Department attorneys are investigating possible civil rights violations.

The federal government already has sued Alabama over its new law, one of three such lawsuits against states that have cracked down on illegal immigration. Now, the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation to monitor potential discrimination as parts of the Alabama law take effect.


The standoff has been over Justice�s request for detailed enrollment data from Alabama schools, part of the probe into complaints that the law has prompted Hispanic families to pull their children from school. But Alabama�s attorney general balked and, in a series of blunt replies, questioned the federal government�s authority to demand the information. The state education department had advised school districts not to comply, but this week expressed a willingness to cooperate.

The disagreement , which could lead to a second Justice Department lawsuit, comes after the administration last year sued Arizona and, two weeks ago, filed suit against South Carolina. Government lawyers are also considering challenges to laws in Utah, Georgia and Indiana.

The lawsuits have emerged as a key part of the administration�s efforts on immigration and could serve as a counterpoint to growing criticism in the Hispanic activist community over President Obama�s stepped-up deportation program.

The Alabama law is considered the toughest of six new state immigration statutes, which include provisions giving police new authority to question legal status, among other things.

The dispute has stirred memories of Alabama�s segregationist past, with accusations that the law targets Hispanics. A civil rights group compared Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange to then-Gov. George C. Wallace (D) in 1963 as he resisted federal efforts to enroll black students at the University of Alabama.

�The intemperate language of [Strange�s] letter does remind us of George Wallace in the schoolhouse door,� said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which set up a hotline to monitor discrimination complaints over the immigration law. He said the hotline has received nearly 4,000 calls.

Strange, a Republican elected last year, vehemently rejected the Wallace comparison and said he would not tolerate discrimination. Supporters of the law defended the attorney general and said concerns about racial profiling of Hispanics are overstated.

�That�s a poisonous thing to say,� said Strange, who defeated Wallace�s son, George Wallace Jr., in a 2006 primary for lieutenant governor.

Legal experts say the level of federal intervention over the immigration laws is extraordinary, particularly since the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have obtained rulings temporarily blocking all or key parts of the Utah, Georgia and Indiana measures. Federal courts also have blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona�s law.

The Alabama law passed in June after last year�s Republican sweep of the legislature. A federal appeals court last month temporarily blocked the most contested provision, which requires public schools to determine citizenship by seeking children�s birth certificates.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed other parts to take effect, pending a more detailed review of the Justice Department�s appeal. Those include provisions requiring police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws and barring undocumented immigrants from entering into business transactions with the state or being party to a contract.

Civil rights groups say this has led to illegal immigrants being evicted from their homes, not getting paid for work and being unable to purchase some utilities. One victim of domestic violence complained that she wasn�t allowed to seek a protective order from a judge, who threatened to turn her in to authorities, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

�The law has had a chilling effect,� said Isabel Rubio, executive director of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, who said some Hispanic families have left the state and others are signing custody of their children over to neighbors in case they are deported.

Thomas E. Perez, the Justice Department�s assistant attorney general for civil rights, said federal lawyers are investigating similar complaints, along with reports of racial profiling during traffic stops, Hispanic children being withdrawn from school and bullying of children who show up.

�There�s a real fear in these households,� he said in an interview.

Strange said his office had not heard of such complaints. And Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who helped draft the Alabama law and is helping coordinate the state�s legal strategy, said the law prohibits consideration of race.

He dismissed reports of discrimination in Alabama as �ridiculous.�

On Nov. 1, Perez wrote to 39 Alabama school districts with significant Hispanic populations, seeking detailed data on student enrollment and absences and giving a Nov. 14 deadline. But Strange replied that Perez had not stated his legal authority to demand the information.

Perez cited a raft of civil rights and other federal laws; Strange replied that Justice had still asserted �no legal authority�� to obtain the data.

Alabama�s interim education superintendent, Larry E. Craven, advised noncompliance in a Nov. 2 letter to school districts. This week, in a letter to Perez, he offered to help districts respond but denied any discrimination in schools.

Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request.

�Why should we do it if we�ve been told not to?� said Nancy Pierce, spokeswoman for Mobile County schools, who said pulling the data would be �extremely labor-intensive.�
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Steadily, and tenaciously, we carve our way into the issue of State's Rights.

"Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request."


This is the real deal, folks.

GTC

Quote
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...IQAhEkeUN_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Justice Dept. dispute with Alabama over illegal-immigration law intensifies

By Jerry Markon, Published: November 17

The Obama administration�s legal campaign against restrictive state immigration laws has led to a bitter standoff in Alabama, where Justice Department attorneys are investigating possible civil rights violations.

The federal government already has sued Alabama over its new law, one of three such lawsuits against states that have cracked down on illegal immigration. Now, the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation to monitor potential discrimination as parts of the Alabama law take effect.


The standoff has been over Justice�s request for detailed enrollment data from Alabama schools, part of the probe into complaints that the law has prompted Hispanic families to pull their children from school. But Alabama�s attorney general balked and, in a series of blunt replies, questioned the federal government�s authority to demand the information. The state education department had advised school districts not to comply, but this week expressed a willingness to cooperate.

The disagreement , which could lead to a second Justice Department lawsuit, comes after the administration last year sued Arizona and, two weeks ago, filed suit against South Carolina. Government lawyers are also considering challenges to laws in Utah, Georgia and Indiana.

The lawsuits have emerged as a key part of the administration�s efforts on immigration and could serve as a counterpoint to growing criticism in the Hispanic activist community over President Obama�s stepped-up deportation program.

The Alabama law is considered the toughest of six new state immigration statutes, which include provisions giving police new authority to question legal status, among other things.

The dispute has stirred memories of Alabama�s segregationist past, with accusations that the law targets Hispanics. A civil rights group compared Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange to then-Gov. George C. Wallace (D) in 1963 as he resisted federal efforts to enroll black students at the University of Alabama.

�The intemperate language of [Strange�s] letter does remind us of George Wallace in the schoolhouse door,� said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which set up a hotline to monitor discrimination complaints over the immigration law. He said the hotline has received nearly 4,000 calls.

Strange, a Republican elected last year, vehemently rejected the Wallace comparison and said he would not tolerate discrimination. Supporters of the law defended the attorney general and said concerns about racial profiling of Hispanics are overstated.

�That�s a poisonous thing to say,� said Strange, who defeated Wallace�s son, George Wallace Jr., in a 2006 primary for lieutenant governor.

Legal experts say the level of federal intervention over the immigration laws is extraordinary, particularly since the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have obtained rulings temporarily blocking all or key parts of the Utah, Georgia and Indiana measures. Federal courts also have blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona�s law.

The Alabama law passed in June after last year�s Republican sweep of the legislature. A federal appeals court last month temporarily blocked the most contested provision, which requires public schools to determine citizenship by seeking children�s birth certificates.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed other parts to take effect, pending a more detailed review of the Justice Department�s appeal. Those include provisions requiring police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws and barring undocumented immigrants from entering into business transactions with the state or being party to a contract.

Civil rights groups say this has led to illegal immigrants being evicted from their homes, not getting paid for work and being unable to purchase some utilities. One victim of domestic violence complained that she wasn�t allowed to seek a protective order from a judge, who threatened to turn her in to authorities, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

�The law has had a chilling effect,� said Isabel Rubio, executive director of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, who said some Hispanic families have left the state and others are signing custody of their children over to neighbors in case they are deported.

Thomas E. Perez, the Justice Department�s assistant attorney general for civil rights, said federal lawyers are investigating similar complaints, along with reports of racial profiling during traffic stops, Hispanic children being withdrawn from school and bullying of children who show up.

�There�s a real fear in these households,� he said in an interview.

Strange said his office had not heard of such complaints. And Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who helped draft the Alabama law and is helping coordinate the state�s legal strategy, said the law prohibits consideration of race.

He dismissed reports of discrimination in Alabama as �ridiculous.�

On Nov. 1, Perez wrote to 39 Alabama school districts with significant Hispanic populations, seeking detailed data on student enrollment and absences and giving a Nov. 14 deadline. But Strange replied that Perez had not stated his legal authority to demand the information.

Perez cited a raft of civil rights and other federal laws; Strange replied that Justice had still asserted �no legal authority�� to obtain the data.

Alabama�s interim education superintendent, Larry E. Craven, advised noncompliance in a Nov. 2 letter to school districts. This week, in a letter to Perez, he offered to help districts respond but denied any discrimination in schools.

Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request.

�Why should we do it if we�ve been told not to?� said Nancy Pierce, spokeswoman for Mobile County schools, who said pulling the data would be �extremely labor-intensive.�


I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?
"Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police....."

And WHO, exactly do they WORK for ?

Oh,.....I forgot, they "Run" things, eh ?

"Legislation" is not the "will of the People" in this case ?

GTC
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
"Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police....."

And WHO, exactly do they WORK for ?

Oh,.....I forgot, they "Run" things, eh ?

"Legislation" is not the "will of the People" in this case ?

GTC


The law is a pile of schit no matter who you work for.
That's a very concise, and defining response.

AGAIN,

"Legislation" is not the "will of the People" in this case ?

GTC
Originally Posted by .280Rem

I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?


What would you do different to accomplish the goal?
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
That's a very concise, and defining response.

AGAIN,

"Legislation" is not the "will of the People" in this case ?

GTC


It doesn't accomplish it, no.
Originally Posted by BarryC
Originally Posted by .280Rem

I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?


What would you do different to accomplish the goal?


That would take hours to answer, and I'm not sure it would work. I just know this new AL law is crap, and that is the consensus of everybody that is burdened with enforcing it. And, oh by the way, it's unenforceable.
Quote
government will take �appropriate action�


sheesh. Didn't even get past the first 2 sentences and I'm hot under the collar.
Miserable douche bags.
The appropriate action is to enforce the law you knot heads. Even a Dead Cat can be taught that.

So, what is this "appropriate action" you beak off about? Whatcha gonna do? Mail a piece of paper? OOOOweee! We're so scared... Then whatca gonna do? Threaten to withhold some money? Guess what, we'll return the favor. How would you like ZERO dollar and ZERO cents from our state to the IRS next year? How ya gonna slice them apples?

Quote
The standoff has been over Justice�s request for detailed enrollment data from Alabama schools, part of the probe into complaints that the law has prompted Hispanic families to pull their children from school.
You LIE!!!
Hispanics in our state are all well and good and they know it. I think the term you're searching for is ILLEGAL ALIENS! And we don't give a damn if they're from Mexico or China or the Moon. They gonna pull up tent stakes and SCOOT! Every stinking one of them!
Oh, by the way. Your use of the term "standoff" smacks of threat of initiated violence. You sure you wanna go there?

Quote
The disagreement, which could lead to a second Justice Department lawsuit... bla bla bla
There is no "disagreement" you mental defects. It's plain and simple rejection of your lies and attempted strong arm tactics.
A "second lawsuit" you say?
Don't you mean "mail another piece of paper"?

Why don't you illiterate rejects and your lawless federal court judges and all your butt buddies at the SPLC and ACLU take your race card and all your other meaningless pieces of paper and pack 'em in your poopers. If you'd like us to take notice, post it on youtube and email a link.

Look, here's the scoop you ignoramus twits. If you won't do your job, fulfill your oaths of office, and enforce the law, we're going to. You're already guilty of breach of oath, dereliction of duty, misappropriation of public funds, gross insubordination, and mail fraud. If we look around I'm sure we can find more. Show up in our jurisdiction in any manner other than with hat in hand and any other speech than requesting orders on where to begin performing your sworn duty and you will be arrested, cuffed and stuffed, charged, printed and jailed to await your arraignment.
Oh, and if you're packing heat without state granted permit to carry, you'll be charged with crimes surrounding that illegal act as well.
Good day.

"My name is Dead Cat. I am running for President of these United States and I approve this message."



.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by BarryC
Originally Posted by .280Rem

I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?


What would you do different to accomplish the goal?


That would take hours to answer, and I'm not sure it would work. I just know this new AL law is crap, and that is the consensus of everybody that is burdened with enforcing it. And, oh by the way, it's unenforceable.


Correct me if I'm wrong,...the "Everybody" you're discussing here,....They get PAID, to do what they are TOLD (ordered) to do,
do they not ?

So WHO pays them,.....?

Or are we discussing folks that voluntarily "Burden" themselves? Somehow I think not.

Hell, I "just know" that.

GTC
We need to turn this country around to a point where the DOJ sews Washington for hiding and encouraging illegals. sick
I'll just quote Russel Pearce,......

�America first with secure borders [and] safer neighborhoods, and protect American jobs [and] save billions of dollars educating, medicating and incarcerating illegal aliens. Extremism is not extreme at all when it is defending this constitutional republic.�

Pearce quoted the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association as saying, �Since S.B. 1070, Phoenix has experienced a 30-year low crime rate. When hard-working rank-and-file Phoenix police officers were given access to the tool of S.B. 1070, the deterrence factor this legislation brought about was clearly instrumental in our unprecedented drop in crime.�

There ain't a goddam word there that's not TRUE.

DOJ do their job?
HA!
That's a laugh.

Next you'll want the ATF to actually support law abiding gun owners and bust criminals rather than harass people for no reason and BE the criminals.

Absolutely preposterous!
What country are you from, anyway?







Originally Posted by Archerhunter


Absolutely preposterous!
What country are you from, anyway?









The Deluded States Of America.
If delusion ever meets treachery, we will have reached a crossroads.

oh, wait...
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by BarryC
Originally Posted by .280Rem

I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?


What would you do different to accomplish the goal?


That would take hours to answer, and I'm not sure it would work. I just know this new AL law is crap, and that is the consensus of everybody that is burdened with enforcing it. And, oh by the way, it's unenforceable.


Correct me if I'm wrong,...the "Everybody" you're discussing here,....They get PAID, to do what they are TOLD (ordered) to do,
do they not ?

So WHO pays them,.....?

Or are we discussing folks that voluntarily "Burden" themselves? Somehow I think not.

Hell, I "just know" that.

GTC


What is your point/question?
Look, If the "Legislation" is voted in legitimately, that is it REFLECTS the "Will of the People" of Alabama,....

"........Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's,....." should STFU, and do the job they are paid to do.

THAT is my point.

GTC
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Steadily, and tenaciously, we carve our way into the issue of State's Rights.

"Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request."


This is the real deal, folks.

GTC

Quote
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...IQAhEkeUN_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Justice Dept. dispute with Alabama over illegal-immigration law intensifies

By Jerry Markon, Published: November 17

The Obama administration�s legal campaign against restrictive state immigration laws has led to a bitter standoff in Alabama, where Justice Department attorneys are investigating possible civil rights violations.

The federal government already has sued Alabama over its new law, one of three such lawsuits against states that have cracked down on illegal immigration. Now, the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation to monitor potential discrimination as parts of the Alabama law take effect.


The standoff has been over Justice�s request for detailed enrollment data from Alabama schools, part of the probe into complaints that the law has prompted Hispanic families to pull their children from school. But Alabama�s attorney general balked and, in a series of blunt replies, questioned the federal government�s authority to demand the information. The state education department had advised school districts not to comply, but this week expressed a willingness to cooperate.

The disagreement , which could lead to a second Justice Department lawsuit, comes after the administration last year sued Arizona and, two weeks ago, filed suit against South Carolina. Government lawyers are also considering challenges to laws in Utah, Georgia and Indiana.

The lawsuits have emerged as a key part of the administration�s efforts on immigration and could serve as a counterpoint to growing criticism in the Hispanic activist community over President Obama�s stepped-up deportation program.

The Alabama law is considered the toughest of six new state immigration statutes, which include provisions giving police new authority to question legal status, among other things.

The dispute has stirred memories of Alabama�s segregationist past, with accusations that the law targets Hispanics. A civil rights group compared Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange to then-Gov. George C. Wallace (D) in 1963 as he resisted federal efforts to enroll black students at the University of Alabama.

�The intemperate language of [Strange�s] letter does remind us of George Wallace in the schoolhouse door,� said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which set up a hotline to monitor discrimination complaints over the immigration law. He said the hotline has received nearly 4,000 calls.

Strange, a Republican elected last year, vehemently rejected the Wallace comparison and said he would not tolerate discrimination. Supporters of the law defended the attorney general and said concerns about racial profiling of Hispanics are overstated.

�That�s a poisonous thing to say,� said Strange, who defeated Wallace�s son, George Wallace Jr., in a 2006 primary for lieutenant governor.

Legal experts say the level of federal intervention over the immigration laws is extraordinary, particularly since the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have obtained rulings temporarily blocking all or key parts of the Utah, Georgia and Indiana measures. Federal courts also have blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona�s law.

The Alabama law passed in June after last year�s Republican sweep of the legislature. A federal appeals court last month temporarily blocked the most contested provision, which requires public schools to determine citizenship by seeking children�s birth certificates.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed other parts to take effect, pending a more detailed review of the Justice Department�s appeal. Those include provisions requiring police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws and barring undocumented immigrants from entering into business transactions with the state or being party to a contract.

Civil rights groups say this has led to illegal immigrants being evicted from their homes, not getting paid for work and being unable to purchase some utilities. One victim of domestic violence complained that she wasn�t allowed to seek a protective order from a judge, who threatened to turn her in to authorities, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

�The law has had a chilling effect,� said Isabel Rubio, executive director of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, who said some Hispanic families have left the state and others are signing custody of their children over to neighbors in case they are deported.

Thomas E. Perez, the Justice Department�s assistant attorney general for civil rights, said federal lawyers are investigating similar complaints, along with reports of racial profiling during traffic stops, Hispanic children being withdrawn from school and bullying of children who show up.

�There�s a real fear in these households,� he said in an interview.

Strange said his office had not heard of such complaints. And Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who helped draft the Alabama law and is helping coordinate the state�s legal strategy, said the law prohibits consideration of race.

He dismissed reports of discrimination in Alabama as �ridiculous.�

On Nov. 1, Perez wrote to 39 Alabama school districts with significant Hispanic populations, seeking detailed data on student enrollment and absences and giving a Nov. 14 deadline. But Strange replied that Perez had not stated his legal authority to demand the information.

Perez cited a raft of civil rights and other federal laws; Strange replied that Justice had still asserted �no legal authority�� to obtain the data.

Alabama�s interim education superintendent, Larry E. Craven, advised noncompliance in a Nov. 2 letter to school districts. This week, in a letter to Perez, he offered to help districts respond but denied any discrimination in schools.

Perez said the government will take �appropriate action� if it finds violations of civil rights laws.

Several Alabama school districts, citing the state education department�s initial recommendation, said they would not comply with Perez�s request.

�Why should we do it if we�ve been told not to?� said Nancy Pierce, spokeswoman for Mobile County schools, who said pulling the data would be �extremely labor-intensive.�


I had to attend a training seminar on Alabama's new immigration bill. Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's, and police all simultaneously saying "WTF is this useless, cumbersome, and burdensome pile of schit legislation"?


I've read of some Chiefs/Sheriff's in some smaller Sand Mtn. cities/counties in North AL. don't like the fact that the state has burdened them, with a law that effects their agencies manpower and resources. This without the state giving any additional funding. This on an already tight budget in some of these cities and counties.
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Look, If the "Legislation" is voted in legitimately, that is it REFLECTS the "Will of the People" of Alabama,....

"........Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's,....." should STFU, and do the job they are paid to do.

THAT is my point.

GTC


The fact that legislation passed, doesn't make it good legislation!

The fact that it's totally unenforceable, makes it bad legislation, among other huge flaws.

It's not a matter of not wanting to do it. It's a matter of the legislature not writing a law we can use.

I hope all that is crystal clear.
The law can and should be enforced, to full extent of law. The LEO are copping out of their responsibilities on this one. There should be no illegal walking in our nation. When found they should be disposed of like yesterday's trash.
Originally Posted by AKbushrat
The law can and should be enforced, to full extent of law. The LEO are copping out of their responsibilities on this one. There should be no illegal walking in our nation. When found they should be disposed of like yesterday's trash.


"We" have tried. In some cases, "we" attempted to be very creative. For instance: The NH Criminal Trespass Statute (RSA 635:2 if anyone cares) reads, in a nutshell, A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.

An illegal isn't licensed or privileged to be in the USA, let alone NH. Try to make the charge stick, though, and one gets his dick slapped by the upper levels of the judiciary.

Good legislation works, it's too bad there's not more of it.

George
Maybe we have problems with judges.
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

but, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin
Quote
Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.



Found in Chapter 645: Public Indeceny

645:3 Adultery. � A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, being a married person, he engages in sexual intercourse with another not his spouse or, being unmarried, engages in sexual intercourse with another known by him to be married.

Enforce it.....?

George
Damn Gus, you finally said something sensible.. I may have to break down and read some more of your posts from time to time....

Thanks
Originally Posted by NH K9
[quote]Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.




my point exactly. thanks for the input.

looks like there's several directions this could take. ignore the enforcement, only enforce if a complaint is made, or knock down bedroom doors looking for perpertrators. there might be other choices as well. i'm not sure. if we had a higher moral standard, maybe none of it makes sense nor is necessary.

for some 200 years, we've had an elected legislature at all levels of gov't, ...city, county, State, Federal that does nothing but make laws. and then expects an underfunded buraaucracy to defend such laws. i'm not going to touch the Court System. i think they mean well, but are mostly a revenue machine for the state. sorry, i got off tract.

by and large, my point was that the entrenched Bureaucracy runs things in this Country. they are caught in the middle between the Politicians with their self-interests, and the Citizens and their self-interests.

the composite of all of the above is just about where we are now. so, how's working out, so far? grin
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Look, If the "Legislation" is voted in legitimately, that is it REFLECTS the "Will of the People" of Alabama,....

"........Room full of Judges, Dist. Attorney's,....." should STFU, and do the job they are paid to do.

THAT is my point.

GTC


The fact that legislation passed, doesn't make it good legislation!

The fact that it's totally unenforceable, makes it bad legislation, among other huge flaws.

It's not a matter of not wanting to do it. It's a matter of the legislature not writing a law we can use.

I hope all that is crystal clear.


All very "New and Fresh" to you, no doubt,....Hey, we've listened to the same line of "Unenforceable" schidt over here where this EFFECTIVE legislation has WORKED,....from Liberal Cops, District Attorneys, and Judges,.....

Lemme see if I'm reading you,.....We "Can't Deport millions", and now "Self Deportation" effective laws are "a Burden" ?

And in response to a request for something viable / as alternative, we get "It would take hours to write, and I don't know if it would work" ?

No you haven't said a goddam thing all day long that's crystal clear, 280, "Hope" notwithstanding.

GTC

OOO Buckshot is enforceable. Illegal immigrants. What's the first word in that descriptor imply? They are criminals bent on the destruction of our nation. Kill them all and let God sort them out or ship them back south of the border. While you are about it, do away with ALL federal government and just have state governments. Then you could choose to live in the state that suits you best.

This country is very close to being done away with if we don't do something.
Originally Posted by AKbushrat
The law can and should be enforced, to full extent of law. The LEO are copping out of their responsibilities on this one. There should be no illegal walking in our nation. When found they should be disposed of like yesterday's trash.


What do you know about the law that I don't?

Are you saying illegals should be executed?
Originally Posted by LongRanger280
OOO Buckshot is enforceable. Illegal immigrants. What's the first word in that descriptor imply? They are criminals bent on the destruction of our nation. Kill them all and let God sort them out or ship them back south of the border. While you are about it, do away with ALL federal government and just have state governments. Then you could choose to live in the state that suits you best.

This country is very close to being done away with if we don't do something.


Until these new state laws, being here illegally wasn't a crime. Crossing the border illegally is a crime, but not all "illegals" came here illegally.
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

but, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.
Originally Posted by .280Rem

It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


Not trying to be confrontational but just wanting to know the facts. What about this law is unenforceable?
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

ut, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


so, in large part, the bureaucracy has decided that the Elected reps have layed an egg? the bureaucracy owns a ton of power, but it must be delivered very subtely, lest the Elected Politicians and Citizenry bond together, leaving the Bureaucracy with a third of the Power. a law that isn't enforced, isn't really a Law, is it?
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

but, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


Why don't you quit beaking off to us,....print some HANDBILLS in El Espa�ol,....and go hand them out to ILLEGALS that are FLEEING Alabama in droves,.....

Clue them in like,...."Don't go, don't go,...."

Maybe call "La Raza" so they can get an information campaign going.

GTC

Originally Posted by Scott F
Originally Posted by .280Rem

It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


Not trying to be confrontational but just wanting to know the facts. What about this law is unenforceable?


If I want to prosecute someone for "being an illegal alien", guess who has the paperwork that proves the person is in this country illegally? That's right, the Feds...ICE...and they ain't cooperating. They won't turn any records over, and there's no way to compel them to.

I wasn't being confrontational when I first posted in this thread either, just stating a fact, and it was taken by several as "just copping out".

Many parts of it have been enjoined by the 11th circuit due to Constitutional concerns.

All I need is a law I can enforce.
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

but, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


Why don't you quit beaking off to us,....print some HANDBILLS in El Espa�ol,....and go hand them out to ILLEGALS that are FLEEING Alabama in droves,.....

Clue them in like,...."Don't go, don't go,...."

Maybe call "La Raza" so they can get an information campaign going.

GTC



Why don't you kiss my ass.
That is what I thought. It is the feds that keep you from doing your job.
Originally Posted by Scott F
That is what I thought. It is the feds that keep you from doing your job.


Yep.
And NO way he was just going to come out and SAY that.

Certainly NOT a Student of JOE Arpaio, and basically the SAME broken record we've been hearing out West , from the get go.

"Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin" philosophical bullchit, while [bleep]' Rome's burning down around our ears.

GTC
Originally Posted by Gus
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

ut, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


so, in large part, the bureaucracy has decided that the Elected reps have layed an egg? the bureaucracy owns a ton of power, but it must be delivered very subtely, lest the Elected Politicians and Citizenry bond together, leaving the Bureaucracy with a third of the Power. a law that isn't enforced, isn't really a Law, is it?


I don't know how may ways to tell you this. If I type in all caps will you understand better? It's not that we don't want to enforce it...IT'S THAT MANY PARTS OF IT NOT ABLE TO BE ENFORCED! NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH TROUBLE...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! IT'S NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH WORK...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! GET IT?
The exodus proves that the law is working.
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
And NO way he was just going to come out and SAY that.

Certainly NOT a Student of JOE Arpaio, and basically the SAME broken record we've been hearing out West , from the get go.

"Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin" philosophical bullchit, while [bleep]' Rome's burning down around our ears.

GTC


I have no problem telling that. You never asked. I said it was an unenforceable pile of garbage, and you blathered on with your kook nonsense about me and others just not wanting to do our jobs.
I agree that the feds are tho guilty party in all this. There was a post earlier this week that said illegals were responsible for twenty US citizens deaths a week and the feds are worried about their civil rights. Holder and his boss should be behind bars not protection the poor illegals and putting out border patrol officers in prison! mad
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by Gus
the enforcement of legislation that is signed into law is the litmus test.

sure there's bad legislation from time to time...think the Prohibition era for one. but the Law was passed at the demand of the Citizenry and repealed under the same demand.

in my mechanistic approach, and understanding, is if a law is voted into recognition, then it must be enforced no matter how untasteful to the hierarchy that it might be. Enforce it, until the Law is changed. if it isn't changed, then continue to Enforce. it's just that simple.

ut, we all know besides the Elected Politicians, there's an entrenched bureaucracy. the bureaucracy is the stabilizing force, and they're equally hated by the Voters and Politicians alike. grin


It's not enforceable. You can scream to enforce it until the cows come home, but it's just, in large part, unenforceable.


so, in large part, the bureaucracy has decided that the Elected reps have layed an egg? the bureaucracy owns a ton of power, but it must be delivered very subtely, lest the Elected Politicians and Citizenry bond together, leaving the Bureaucracy with a third of the Power. a law that isn't enforced, isn't really a Law, is it?


I don't know how may ways to tell you this. If I type in all caps will you understand better? It's not that we don't want to enforce it...IT'S THAT MANY PARTS OF IT NOT ABLE TO BE ENFORCED! NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH TROUBLE...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! IT'S NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH WORK...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! GET IT?


and so, the Bureaucracy has spoken. the Bureacracy says they're not going to go there, until the law is either re-interpreted, or rewritten.

i do understand, perfectly.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by LongRanger280
OOO Buckshot is enforceable. Illegal immigrants. What's the first word in that descriptor imply? They are criminals bent on the destruction of our nation. Kill them all and let God sort them out or ship them back south of the border. While you are about it, do away with ALL federal government and just have state governments. Then you could choose to live in the state that suits you best.

This country is very close to being done away with if we don't do something.


Until these new state laws, being here illegally wasn't a crime. Crossing the border illegally is a crime, but not all "illegals" came here illegally.


Right, I get it crazy,...that makes PERFECT SENSE !

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
I don't know how may ways to tell you this. If I type in all caps will you understand better? It's not that we don't want to enforce it...IT'S THAT MANY PARTS OF IT NOT ABLE TO BE ENFORCED! NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH TROUBLE...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! IT'S NOT THAT IT'S TOO MUCH WORK...IT'S NOT POSSIBLE! GET IT? [/quote]

and so, the Bureaucracy has spoken. the Bureacracy has stood up on it's haunches and says they're not going to go there, until the law is either re-interpreted, or rewritten.

i do understand, perfectly.
No the "Bureaucracy" is not going to go there period - no matter what and will not define their what the plan is cause there isn't one.
Originally Posted by Scott F
I agree that the feds are tho guilty party in all this. There was a post earlier this week that said illegals were responsible for twenty US citizens deaths a week and the feds are worried about their civil rights. Holder and his boss should be behind bars not protection the poor illegals and putting out border patrol officers in prison! mad


Scott, This issue has been going on longer then the current POTUS & Co. have been in business. I've seen ICS refuse to come and pick up illegals manytimes. That or just issue them a summons to appear in Fed. Crt. which they're normally failure to appear.

I've seen a state Judge order illegals released, that were being held for ICE to pick them up, this after ICE refused to pick them up and the illegals had served their local sentences. There was nothing to hold them on. The illegals knew that ICE wasn't coming and the illegals had obtained an Atty. to file a suit for holding them.
Originally Posted by poboy
No the "Bureaucracy" is not going to go there period - no matter what and will not define their what the plan is cause there isn't one.


while in theory, the bureaucracy is assigned to the Executive Branch, they have relationships with both the Congressional Branch and the Court System.

they also have established relationships with the civilian voters who control the whole show. grin

the bureaucrats are exceedingly utilitarian, in my estimation. they follow the Leader, whomever that might be at the time. but, mostly, they deal in self-interest. they want to exhibit a satisficing behavior. they want to please everyone they can, so that they can live to recieve a gov't pension.

yes, bureaucrats also possess a self-interest factor, no matter whom their boss is, during this four year term. grin
Originally Posted by hunter1960


Scott, This issue has been going on longer then the current POTUS & Co. have been in business. I've seen ICS refuse to come and pick up illegals manytimes. That or just issue them a summons to appear in Fed. Crt. which they're normally failure to appear.

I've seen a state Judge order illegals released, that were being held for ICE to pick them up, this after ICE refused to pick them up and the illegals had served their local sentences. There was nothing to hold them on. The illegals knew that ICE wasn't coming and the illegals had obtained an Atty. to file a suit for holding them.


Trust me my friend, I understand neither party is in the clear. This has been going on for a long time and the Republicans are just as guilty of putting their heads in a hole and hoping the problem goes away.
So the "established relationship with the civilian voters who control the whole show" is "No we won't do that no matter what!"?
Originally Posted by poboy
So the "established relationship with the civilian voters who control the whole show" is "No we won't do that no matter what!"?


i don't think the civilian voters know that they control the whole show. not yet anyways, but, me and my kind are doing our best to educate them as fast as we can.

what they choose to do with the education is up to them and theirs. (and we will all live with the results.)
Educate 'em all you want, the answer is still "No!".
Originally Posted by poboy
Educate 'em all you want, the answer is still "No!".


so, beyond logical education, we have the three votes.

at the polls
with our monetary expenditures,
with our feet.

the Occupiers however much i disagree with them, are choosing to vote with their feet. right or wrong, they are making statements.

if the votes keep coming, sooner or later the Executive Branch will start issuing edicts that the bureaucrats must begin to recognize, then begin to enforce. it all in the process. the voters are at the base of the process, for better or worse.
These are the Executive Branch edicts that we are being bombarded by right now.
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by LongRanger280
OOO Buckshot is enforceable. Illegal immigrants. What's the first word in that descriptor imply? They are criminals bent on the destruction of our nation. Kill them all and let God sort them out or ship them back south of the border. While you are about it, do away with ALL federal government and just have state governments. Then you could choose to live in the state that suits you best.

This country is very close to being done away with if we don't do something.


Until these new state laws, being here illegally wasn't a crime. Crossing the border illegally is a crime, but not all "illegals" came here illegally.


Right, I get it crazy,...that makes PERFECT SENSE !

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]


No, clearly you don't.
Originally Posted by poboy
These are the Executive Branch edicts that we are being bombarded by right now.


it's a simple process really. just vote out every swinging dick you disagree with. Vote for anyone that is a better choice than the existing Incumbent.

through process and change, we will make this a better country than it is at the moment.

or, we'll be beaten to death, and the country will no longer exist. it's our choice, i reckon.
"Being here illegally wasn't a crime". It was against the law,though.
Originally Posted by Scott F
Originally Posted by hunter1960


Scott, This issue has been going on longer then the current POTUS & Co. have been in business. I've seen ICS refuse to come and pick up illegals manytimes. That or just issue them a summons to appear in Fed. Crt. which they're normally failure to appear.

I've seen a state Judge order illegals released, that were being held for ICE to pick them up, this after ICE refused to pick them up and the illegals had served their local sentences. There was nothing to hold them on. The illegals knew that ICE wasn't coming and the illegals had obtained an Atty. to file a suit for holding them.


Trust me my friend, I understand neither party is in the clear. This has been going on for a long time and the Republicans are just as guilty of putting their heads in a hole and hoping the problem goes away.


We all have heard this said on the illegal situation, the Dems. want the minority issue and the Repubs. want the cheap labor.
And the citizens want law and order along with jobs.
Originally Posted by Scott F
And the citizens want law and order along with jobs.


In the end who do you think will win? I hope it's the citizens for the good of this country. I believe we're still some years off from real illegal alien reform. We still don't have a secure border, to keep those deported from returning.
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
Originally Posted by .280Rem
Originally Posted by LongRanger280
OOO Buckshot is enforceable. Illegal immigrants. What's the first word in that descriptor imply? They are criminals bent on the destruction of our nation. Kill them all and let God sort them out or ship them back south of the border. While you are about it, do away with ALL federal government and just have state governments. Then you could choose to live in the state that suits you best.

This country is very close to being done away with if we don't do something.


Until these new state laws, being here illegally wasn't a crime. Crossing the border illegally is a crime, but not all "illegals" came here illegally.


Right, I get it crazy,...that makes PERFECT SENSE !

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]


No, clearly you don't.
Somehow I'm pretty sure that the irony of investigating citizens to see if said citizens violated the civil rights of CRIMINALS while not investgating those criminals is lost on the DOJ and the liberals.
We've got us a serial "Nay sayer" Here,.....in the Gary Cooper mold

latest is ,

"No , it's not about Semantics"

Izzat the "imperial Nay" we're hearing there ?


GTC
More smoke and mirrors to get everyones mind off fast and furious.
Right or wrong, it's good to see some states willing to flex their muscles.
I put this somewhat OLD post up to illustrate a repetitive theme,....that being this ".280Rem" beaking off about "Legal v. Illegal"

like anybody gives a [bleep] about some "Angels on a Pinhead" (his) legaleeze BULLCHIT, when their neighbors are being Robbed, Raped and Killed.

It's a [bleep]' disgrace,....mouthy prevarication in the face of clear cut aggression.

GTC
Federal gov't wastes money and resources fighting redundant laws states are forced to fashion. It would be much more financially, socially and constitutionaly responsible to just enforce federal law. Some jobs the Feds just won't do (so the states must). In the case of the southern insurgency our Federal Government is on the side of the insurgents. Plain and simple. But why is this? Why would our elected officials sworn to duty act in such a contradictory way? Is it simply for the money or additional votes or is it really more sinister. It has appeared for quite a while both parties wish to change the demographics of the United States in ways our Constitution and legal system will not allow. Who controls the puppets and for what reasons?
Originally Posted by crossfireoops
I put this somewhat OLD post up to illustrate a repetitive theme,....that being this ".280Rem" beaking off about "Legal v. Illegal"

like anybody gives a [bleep] about some "Angels on a Pinhead" (his) legaleeze BULLCHIT, when their neighbors are being Robbed, Raped and Killed.

It's a [bleep]' disgrace,....mouthy prevarication in the face of clear cut aggression.

GTC


What are you doing about the robberies, rapes, murders? Are you doing anything to protect your community or investigate those crimes that have occured??

I guess posting songs about people who've been murdered will solve the crime and keep others safe. crazy 280Rem. knows more about what is a prosecutable law in his state of AL. then a mouthy kook runt who just "cut's & paste's".
© 24hourcampfire