I never liked Vodka anyways...

Ghostly Apparition on 12/4/2008 at 22:57

Have to admit you're right. California doesn't have felony for marijuana possession whether medical or not as I believe it should be. Much as it pains me, I have to agree that it shouldn't be up to local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. I don't know exactly what the answer is. But it seems the feds aren't really trying to do anything about illegal immigration. To me that is unacceptable.

Edit: Also, while I know there are a lot of people who benefit greatly from medical marijuana. There is also alot of abuse of that system to allow drug users to procure marijuana thru medical sources if they get a doctor to go along with it. Which if theres money involved you can bet there are some doctors who will. But thats another subject.

Swiss Mercenary on 12/4/2008 at 23:02

Quote Posted by phide

I'm a zealot because I believe in the rule of law, am I?

No, but your profile says your alignment is Lawful Stupid.

Mr.Duck on 12/4/2008 at 23:18

Quote Posted by heretic

(Also in Español)

fix'd ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but, I think latinamericans already took the #1 place of the largest minority in the States, right? (Mexicans, my countrymen, if memory serves, being the largest % of said minority group).

So, if I may ask a silly Q, not from the illegal immigration problem, but from a more friendly perspective, what changes (good, or at least NOT bad) have you noticed in all levels of everyday life?, for those that have noticed, that is (and no, Univision and Telemundo are examples of -bad- changes ;););)).

Just curious.

Funny thing: I think a lot of my countrymen in Mexico are protesting about the Absolut Ad and it seems to have gone down. Wonder what were they even thinking with putting up such an ad?

Sheesh...

Starrfall on 12/4/2008 at 23:18

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

But it seems the feds aren't really trying to do anything about illegal immigration. To me that is unacceptable.

I agree, but my caveat would be that the system needs to be revamped so that enforcement can be done efficiently while meeting the needs of the country and hopefully respecting immigrants as well. (actually you probably agree with that too) It's also very frustrating to see a bad system made worse - as an example in 2002, while acknowledging the huge backlog problem with appeals of immigration orders, John Ashcroft reduced the number of members of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 23 to 11.

So not only is the system convoluted and hard to work through, but now it takes even longer to properly process these cases that must be processed.

Mortal Monkey on 13/4/2008 at 00:13

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

Second, your comment implies that its ok to shoot someone down in the street as long as its a Mexican? Care to elaborate on that? I don't think even the most racist people among us would sign off on gunbattles between Mexicans on the streets.
Get a grip.

I don't care much to elaborate on something I never implied. Much less when you don't want to answer the question I actually asked.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're on about. If you're still talking about my first post, that was sarcasm. How you apparantly failed to read my second post - despite quoting it - is beyond me. Maybe I tripped you up with that footnote?

heretic on 13/4/2008 at 01:08

Quote Posted by Starrfall

The LAPD treated this exactly like they treat every other criminal: he did his time and was released, like hundreds of criminals are on a regular basis. And like many criminals before him, he committed another crime. Now I will admit that had they turned him over to the feds, this crime in particular would not have happened. And then I will suggest that as long as we're going with that line of thinking, every jail sentence should be for life, because if we never let any criminals out of jail, none will fall into recidivism.

Keeping everyone in jail/prison is not practical.
An earnest attempt at stopping or even drastically slowing down the traffic through our borders is, which will of course prevent the more serious crimes commited by some illegals from ever occuring. Regardless, any comparison of illegals with our citizens in this regard is redundant, criminal or not. The term citizen means something, which you well know.

In areas where Law Enforcement has become serious about control such as Oklahoma or Arizona the situation has become managable easier than anyone predicted through attrition. Illegals are actually leaving before the laws take effect.

Like I mentioned before, stricter control at the border will prevent a lot more crime in the US then just those commited by crossing the border. Once they are in country things obviously become much tougher. Given tough control at the local, county and state level attrition will shrink the problem over time, and the economy will make up for any losses by mechanation and other moves towards economic equilibrium which will no doubt occur eventually. Hooray free market.

"We currently have roughly 5,000 federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens with court orders against them. Eighty-thousand of them are serious felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists," Norwood said on the floor of the House. "Those odds are impossible. But if we allow our 700,000 state and local police to volunteer to help, the odds get a lot better."
-Rep. Charlie Norwood

Ghostly Apparition on 13/4/2008 at 01:56

Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey

Ok, to answer your first question. If you deport someone after they have served their time for a crime committed here, then they won't be in the U.S. to shoot someone down in the street.
Get it? NOT HERE = NOT ABLE TO COMMIT CRIME HERE.
I wouldn't think that would be that hard to understand. I didn't answer your question because I didn't realize anybody could be that dense. I stand corrected.

*ps: your footnote answered your own damn question. As for spending boatloads of tax dollars to deport them. They are already supposed to deport illegal aliens. All I am suggesting is deporting the criminal ones which would be far far less than deporting them all. Headlines in newspapers and on television notwithstanding, the number of criminal element compared to the overall illegal population would be a very small percentage and wouldn't be a huge tax burden.
Wouldn't you rather have your taxes go to deport convicted criminals especially violent offenders or ( and we are back at the mexican gun battles in the streets again, LOL )

heretic on 13/4/2008 at 03:55

Quote Posted by MrDuck

fix'd ;)
(and no, Univision and Telemundo are examples of -bad- changes ;););)).

Says you..

My grasp of Spanish is deplorable, as you've no doubt allready noticed. This doesn't leave me much room for an excuse when my wife catches me hovering on Telemundo because I can't bring myself to stop staring at Paulino Rubio's tits.

Mortal Monkey on 13/4/2008 at 09:29

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

Thanks, that makes it clear. I just didn't think you really meant that, considering how you were preaching about it being tragic no matter who gets killed. Carry on.

Mr.Duck on 13/4/2008 at 09:32

Quote Posted by heretic

stfu, y'know I'm just teasing :)

*Tickles you and gives you a box full of Ñ and ñ*

:D

Also...Paulina Rubio :angel:

Yup, she's one hot mamacita. Although there are many more Mexicans what I prefer to oogle at. :sly: