I was just doing some research on the internet about candidates and what their stances were on certain issues. One of the main factors that will determine my vote is what are they going to do about the immigration problem we have in Northern Virginia. I live in Chantilly not Chuck Caputo, Gerry Connolly, or Janet Oleszek even mention immigration on their webpage. I was curious as if other democrats in other districts are the same way?

There's a very simple explanation for all this. Look at their last names...they're probably fresh off the boat.

BR -- that's hilarious. I think the democrats are glad to have easy access to cheap labor. I think republicans realize they can't do much about it, but pretend that if you re-elect them, they will do something. Here in Virginia, republicans have been in control of the legislature forever, and they don't seem to have effectively addressed the issue.

Nothing on Linda Q. Smyth's page either... But she's running uncontested, so maybe there's no reason for her to say anything that might give her constituents an idea of where she stands.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats aren't out their touting unenforceable "laws" like the Republicans are. The fact is most of the laws being passed locally by Republicans (e.g. Prince William) are going to be struck down by the courts, the way that the laws in Hazelton, PA were. Why? Because 1) local communities are constitutionally barred from making immigration laws, 2) many of the laws currently being used run afoul of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, and 3) all it accomplishes is fostering civil strife within the community while accomplishing nothing.

The biggest reason U-Haul trailers are leaving Prince William County has more to do with economic conditions than any local laws. With the re-setting of sub-prime mortgages causing illegals to walk away from their homes and jobs drying up, many have chosen to go to North Carolina or other parts of the state with more reliable employment (aka Chicken Plucking).

Correction: The Democrats are trying to issue drivers licenses and voter registration cards.

I thought Gerry Connolly had the red carpet out for the illegals.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The biggest reason U-Haul trailers are leaving
> Prince William County has more to do with economic
> conditions than any local laws. With the
> re-setting of sub-prime mortgages causing illegals
> to walk away from their homes and jobs drying up,
> many have chosen to go to North Carolina or other
> parts of the state with more reliable employment
> (aka Chicken Plucking).

Well they will need some additional training to become new hire Chicken
Pluckers. Fortunately, this isnt rocket science and they can read the
manual on the way down I-95 to N.C.

http://www.cumberlandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=26

Perhaps we could all chip in and buy them one as a going away present.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between the Democrats and the
> Republicans is that the Democrats aren't out their
> touting unenforceable "laws" like the Republicans
> are. The fact is most of the laws being passed
> locally by Republicans (e.g. Prince William) are
> going to be struck down by the courts, the way
> that the laws in Hazelton, PA were. Why? Because
> 1) local communities are constitutionally barred
> from making immigration laws, 2) many of the laws
> currently being used run afoul of the Civil Rights
> Act and the 14th Amendment, and 3) all it
> accomplishes is fostering civil strife within the
> community while accomplishing nothing.

So, a little while ago, in order to keep their base happy, mostly Republicans voted to spend $1 Billion on a 20 foot high, 750 mile fence along the Mexican border.

Opponents of this measure said in open testimony "you plan on spending a billion dollars on a 20 foot high fence, knowing full well Wal-Mart sells a 22 foot ladder?".

Shockingly, the bill was approved and President Bush signed it. That is where true republicans stand on illegal immigration.

But then again I am just a wicked liberal who does not understand the true benefit of spending the 1 billion dollars on the fence that will slow down an illegal immigrants journey for maybe 2 minutes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2007 01:43PM by Radiophile.

Well, at least they did something. Im sure democrats/liberals wouldve done nothing

Ms. Oleszek continues to send us hate mail about Commonwealth Sen. Ken Cuccinelli.
She alleges that he wants to criminalize abortion and jail women and doctors who help them. Also, she claims that Sen. Cuccinelli is against stem cell research. And, finally, I recall another allegation that Sen. Cuccinelli supported extant gun laws. Are any of these claims valid? I, personally, support women's right to choose, stem cell research, and right to carry--and I detest hate mail. Please tell me that there's something wrong here or that there is an Independent candidate.

>Well, at least they did something.

Like spending a ridiculous amount of our tax money on an idea that most likely will not solve the problem it was intended to solve??

You really think that's a good reason to vote for someone?

myahh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, at least they did something. Im sure
> democrats/liberals wouldve done nothing


yeah, they did "something" - spent a billion dollars on a useless fence! That billion could have been spent on other means to stop illegal immigration. Oh, that is right, we are under the Bush administration, billion here, 10 billion there, it all evens out in the end.

Here is a radical idea - the Three Generals approach. Offer 3 Mexican generals $100 million to stop illegals coming over the border for 10 years. Then tell the generals $5000 will be deducted for each illegal that comes across the border. Illegal border crossings would halt almost immediately.

myahh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, at least they did something. Im sure
> democrats/liberals wouldve done nothing


Some did something. They actually pondered a 22 foot ladder and and 20 foot fence. Oh the wacky liberals!

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between the Democrats and the
> Republicans is that the Democrats aren't out their
> touting unenforceable "laws" like the Republicans
> are.

The Democrats are out there doing NOTHING. Or, conversely, many are promoting policies of amnesty and sanctuary.

> The fact is most of the laws being passed
> locally by Republicans (e.g. Prince William) are
> going to be struck down by the courts, the way
> that the laws in Hazelton, PA were. Why? Because
> 1) local communities are constitutionally barred
> from making immigration laws, 2) many of the laws
> currently being used run afoul of the Civil Rights
> Act and the 14th Amendment, and 3) all it
> accomplishes is fostering civil strife within the
> community while accomplishing nothing.

The ordinance in PWC is completely different than the Hazleton ordinance. You probably know this, yet choose to not present the facts like you do in numerous other posts on this board (see http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/47789/47884.html#msg-47884 ). The Hazleton ordinance was a true enforcement ordinance imposing fines on landlords and employers that violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. You know damn well that the PWC ordinance is a far cry from the Hazleton ordinance. The PWC ordinance instructs local law enforcement to inquire about an arrested person's legal status in the country. This is known as the ICE 287(g) program and is far from violating the Supremacy clause or any other Contitutional provision. There are no sanctions for employers or landlords in PWC. They are considering denying services to illegal aliens to a certain set of services, not all services. People are denied services every day for a myriad of reasons (too young, too old, make too much money, etc. not a county resident). Civil strife is caused when elected officials sit idly by and allow an innundation of criminals into a society.


> The biggest reason U-Haul trailers are leaving
> Prince William County has more to do with economic
> conditions than any local laws. With the
> re-setting of sub-prime mortgages causing illegals
> to walk away from their homes and jobs drying up,
> many have chosen to go to North Carolina or other
> parts of the state with more reliable employment
> (aka Chicken Plucking).

No argument here. However, that doesn't mean that a prudent legislative body would stop attempting to solve problems.


OUt of curiousity, where did you get your Constitutional law training?

CON law? G'Town here. You?

I guess since the Republicans with their developer-funded initiatives are through using illegal immigrants to build their commercial and residential projects that it's ok to just throw them all out now, huh?

Fairfax will always be Democrat and the party lines are expanding far beyond the beltway, so if you don't like it, you could always move to Texas.

Wait. That's too close to the border for you, isn't it? LOL. -§

Damn, and I used to think GTown grads had a grain of intelligence.

Funny you talk about "Republicans with their developer-funded initiatives." Funny because apparently you never stopped to look at who funds Chmn. Connolly's campaign. His top donors include West Group, Cyrus Katzen, Lerner Corp., and Lee Properties. That's right, four of his top ten contributers are all real estate developers. I'd say you have your facts reversed. But, then again, who needs facts? If you have the facts, argue them, if you have the law, argue that, you chose the third option and I think we all know what that is.

No disagreement about the shifting political demographics in FFX county. I can move, but I enjoy my career and home. Unlike some of the liberal elite that pledge moving when certain candidates are elected, I still recognize that we live in a democracy. When the electorate votes, I can accept the outcome. I don't have to like it, but I can and will accept it. I also recognize that I am entitled to complain about it. The lovely thing about the first amendment is that liberals are all for it until someone might have a conservative thought.

btw, UVa Law - much better bargain.

Flarefax Wrote:
-
>
> btw, UVa Law - much better bargain.


UVa - for those who just can not get accepted to the University of Delaware Law.

I am sure all of these contributers to ol' Gerry really care about our transportation woes.

Real Estate Developers $109,342
Rental/Property Management $99,850
Realtors $41,995
Homebuilders $38,425
Engineers/Engineering Firms $9,934
Commercial Real Estate $6,250
Miscellaneous Construction $5,750
General Contractors $4,220
Excavation Contractors $4,000
Land-Use Attorney/Consultants $3,250
Mortgage Lenders $2,450
Title Companies/Settlement Agencies $1,750
Architectural Services/Surveyors $1,535
Building Trades/Subcontractors $1,000
Appraisers/Auctioneers $750
Building Materials/Supplies $199

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> UVa - for those who just can not get accepted to
> the University of Delaware Law.

Actually it was my second choice after UDC, lol.

Democrats think that the illegals will eventually all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is a movement that is registering illegals to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this county too. And you can bet they'll all be voting for democrats, more free stuff for them.

BTW, Gary Baise has taken NO money from developers, unlike Connelly whose biggest contributors are developers. Baise pledged to take NO development money and he hasn't.

VOTE BAISE, kick Connelly out, along with his developers.

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democrats think that the illegals will eventually
> all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is a
> movement that is registering illegals to vote. I
> wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this
> county too. And you can bet they'll all be voting
> for democrats, more free stuff for them.


As opposed to free stuff for corporations and war profiteers given away by the current administration?

Last year I saw a General who was in Iraq talk about the reconstruction. He was saying that the Coalition Provisional Authority was hiring US citizens right and left. He said that these are were the questions asked in the interview process

1) Do you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman?
2) Do you believe citizens have the right to own guns
3) What is your opinion on abortion
etc.

He then said he was in the green zone one day and met a man who was barely 25. He asked what the man did, and he said he was in charge of rebuilding all the prisons in Iraq. The General asked how many people the man was working with. The response was 3. The General said "That is a very complex job for four people." And the man said, "yes I know, but we are fraternity brothers, so we get along very well".

How many billions of dollars are just not accounted for over there? We could have a built a real fence with that kind of money!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2007 06:49PM by Radiophile.

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democrats think that the illegals will eventually
> all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is a
> movement that is registering illegals to vote. I
> wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this
> county too. And you can bet they'll all be voting
> for democrats, more free stuff for them.


Does everyone here realize that "Neen" is Christine Arakelian, Hunter Mill District school board candidate? Your true colors shine through.

myahh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, at least they did something. Im sure
> democrats/liberals wouldve done nothing


The fence isn't built yet. And it covers 700 miles of a 2000 mile border. And, I know illegals who fly in and out the country on planes with no hassle, so our immigration problems are much worse than a fence on the border.

"They are considering denying services to illegal aliens to a certain set of services, not all services. People are denied services every day for a myriad of reasons (too young, too old, make too much money, etc. not a county resident)."

How do they determine who is and isn't illegal? They ask for ID. Who do they ask for ID? White people? No. Blacks? No. Hispanics? Yes. Legal and illegal Hispanics are asked....nobody else is.

Equal protection under the law means this is profiling...which is unconstitutional.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> OUt of curiousity, where did you get your
> Constitutional law training?

When something is so blatantly unconstitutional, it doesn't take a lawyer to see it. Just like I don't need to be a doctor to know that a guy with an ax in his head should probably be at an ER.

I say our republican leaders (Davis and his wife Jeanmarie) introduce legislation to build a wall around Fairfax County, 20 feet high, to keep out the illegal immigrants. Anyone with me on this?

Mr. Radiophile tear down that wall

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> How do they determine who is and isn't illegal?
> They ask for ID. Who do they ask for ID? White
> people? No. Blacks? No. Hispanics? Yes. Legal and
> illegal Hispanics are asked....nobody else is.
>
> Equal protection under the law means this is
> profiling...which is unconstitutional.


With all due respect you are confusing discriminatory intent and disparate impact. You are also assuming that they will only ask for proof of residence of those of Hispanic ethnicity. If you look at the legislative history of the Prince William County ordinance, including all supporting documents, you will see a very measured and contemplative approach. If/when a denial of services is enacted by PWC, I am certain the county will implement intense training for its employees. By simply asking each applicant for services for a VA ID or driver's license will in theory act as proof of legal presence because VA requires a proof of legal presence in order to get an ID or license. Now, a proof requirement will probably have a disparate impact on the Hispanic community. Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Disparate impact merely has an evidentiary value; absent a stark pattern, impact is not determinative. Because this ordinance will apply to all illegal aliens, white, hispanic, black, asian, et. al., it will likely not violate the Equal Protection Clause. You may be able to get past the first prong of the disparate impact test, but I think you would be hard pressed to get past the second prong.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>When something is so blatantly unconstitutional, it doesn't take a lawyer to see >it. Just like I don't need to be a doctor to know that a guy with an ax in his >head should probably be at an ER.

Again, just throwing around words like "blatently" with no real argumnet to back them up. You play so loose with the facts it is ridiculous. And, most likely a guy with an axe in his head belongs in a morgue, just like your argument.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "They are considering denying services to illegal
> aliens to a certain set of services, not all
> services. People are denied services every day for
> a myriad of reasons (too young, too old, make too
> much money, etc. not a county resident)."
>
> How do they determine who is and isn't illegal?
> They ask for ID. Who do they ask for ID? White
> people? No. Blacks? No. Hispanics? Yes. Legal and
> illegal Hispanics are asked....nobody else is.
>
> Equal protection under the law means this is
> profiling...which is unconstitutional.


No need for "racial profiling" here. White people too should be questioned about
their residency if their is sufficient reason. There are illegals from all over
Europe (especially Central Europe). I have also read that Irish illegals are now
going back to Ireland to apply for LEGAL immigration. There are also illegals
from Africa, Asia, and just about everywhere else, so why should I be an exception?. If Im challenged by a police officer, I will respond by presenting
a VALID drivers license and if necessary a birth certificate, Army Discharge
papers, Federal Government retirement papers, and last but not least, a record
of my Top Secret/Crypto Security Clearance. BTW, when I was applying for my
TS/Crypto clearance, the requirements were that you MUST be at least a third
generation Natural Born American Citizen!. Somehow that requirement got lost
in the PC craze and we are now paying the price. Thanks Mr. Wen Ho Lee! Whoops,
Should have thanked our PC crazy government instead. If the PC crowd doesnt like
what I have to say, they can kiss my white, HILLBILLY, One Fourth Cherokee, Viet Nam Vet, NRA supporting, America Lovin' BEHIND!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2007 10:23PM by slimey.

Flarefax Wrote:

>
> >When something is so blatantly unconstitutional,
> it doesn't take a lawyer to see >it. Just like I
> don't need to be a doctor to know that a guy with
> an ax in his >head should probably be at an ER.
>
> Again, just throwing around words like "blatently"
> with no real argumnet to back them up. You play
> so loose with the facts it is ridiculous. And,
> most likely a guy with an axe in his head belongs
> in a morgue, just like your argument.


How's this, Clarence Darrow. The PW law is being challenged on the basis it violates "Equal Protection Under the Law" in a suit filed by Howrey, LLP...

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/1007/462632.html

I would imagine the lawyers working on the case have more experience and better education to deal with this case than you do. Most Con Lawyers at this level don't have time to fuck around on Fairfax Underground because they are actually doing something important, unlike you.

As I said before, this case is pretty damn cut and dry. You are assuming that this law will be applied fairly in the real world. If that were the case, then we would still have segregation in this country because "Separate but Equal" would be a true standard, which it wasn't.

I'm no Constitutional lawyer. But I do know that if you are, you are a very poor one. So much so, in fact, that I appear to know the law better than you do, which is apparently a sad commentary on the state of the UVA law school.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
>
> >
> > >When something is so blatantly
> unconstitutional,
> > it doesn't take a lawyer to see >it. Just like
> I
> > don't need to be a doctor to know that a guy
> with
> > an ax in his >head should probably be at an ER.
> >
> > Again, just throwing around words like
> "blatently"
> > with no real argumnet to back them up. You
> play
> > so loose with the facts it is ridiculous. And,
> > most likely a guy with an axe in his head
> belongs
> > in a morgue, just like your argument.
>
>
> How's this, Clarence Darrow. The PW law is being
> challenged on the basis it violates "Equal
> Protection Under the Law" in a suit filed by
> Howrey, LLP...
>
> http://www.news8.net/news/stories/1007/462632.html
>
>
> I would imagine the lawyers working on the case
> have more experience and better education to deal
> with this case than you do. Most Con Lawyers at
> this level don't have time to fuck around on
> Fairfax Underground because they are actually
> doing something important, unlike you.
>
> As I said before, this case is pretty damn cut and
> dry. You are assuming that this law will be
> applied fairly in the real world. If that were the
> case, then we would still have segregation in this
> country because "Separate but Equal" would be a
> true standard, which it wasn't.
>
> I'm no Constitutional lawyer. But I do know that
> if you are, you are a very poor one. So much so,
> in fact, that I appear to know the law better than
> you do, which is apparently a sad commentary on
> the state of the UVA law school.

Oh, now this is getting good. I assume that you think every case that is filed is an automatic winner. No need to ever hold oral arguments, simply file and win. And lawyers never take on cases for economic reasons. I know attorneys at Howrey. They are a fine group of lawyers, but their primary practice areas are intellectual property and antitrust - not constitutional. Call them and ask for yourself if you don't believe me. I never claimed to be a constitutional attorney. I took Conlaw, and it is apparent that my understanding of the issue is far greater than yours. You have a particular opinion that criminal illegal aliens should not be turned over for deportation, but please don't butcher the law in order to make that point. You can argue about fairness, better opportunity, humanitarian reasons, etc., but every time you speak about the law you are just flat out wrong.

It is far from cut and dry. Your comparison to "Separate but Equal" is way off base. First, "Separate but Equal" was overturned in Brown and its progeny of cases. Second, "Separate but Equal" is de jure racial segregation. No lawyer in thier right mind would argue that the PWC ordinance is de jure segregation. IF it were possible for the ordinance to be overturned here, it would need to be shown that it was de facto discriminatory. Everyone here is assuming that the ordinance will be unevenly applied. However, until it is actually enforced, you are simply assumning. Seriously though, take a look at Washington v. Davis ( http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1492/ ) or Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. ( http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_616/ ).

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democrats think that the illegals will eventually
> all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is a
> movement that is registering illegals to vote. I
> wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this
> county too. And you can bet they'll all be voting
> for democrats, more free stuff for them.


the ACLU and the NAACP are in Virginia to "help" the "forgotten" people vote.

take a wild guess who they're going to help them vote for.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
>
> >
> > >When something is so blatantly
> unconstitutional,
> > it doesn't take a lawyer to see >it. Just like
> I
> > don't need to be a doctor to know that a guy
> with
> > an ax in his >head should probably be at an ER.
> >
> > Again, just throwing around words like
> "blatently"
> > with no real argumnet to back them up. You
> play
> > so loose with the facts it is ridiculous. And,
> > most likely a guy with an axe in his head
> belongs
> > in a morgue, just like your argument.
>
>
> How's this, Clarence Darrow. The PW law is being
> challenged on the basis it violates "Equal
> Protection Under the Law" in a suit filed by
> Howrey, LLP...
>
> http://www.news8.net/news/stories/1007/462632.html
>
>
> I would imagine the lawyers working on the case
> have more experience and better education to deal
> with this case than you do. Most Con Lawyers at
> this level don't have time to fuck around on
> Fairfax Underground because they are actually
> doing something important, unlike you.
>
> As I said before, this case is pretty damn cut and
> dry. You are assuming that this law will be
> applied fairly in the real world. If that were the
> case, then we would still have segregation in this
> country because "Separate but Equal" would be a
> true standard, which it wasn't.
>
> I'm no Constitutional lawyer. But I do know that
> if you are, you are a very poor one. So much so,
> in fact, that I appear to know the law better than
> you do, which is apparently a sad commentary on
> the state of the UVA law school.


There is nothing worse then some hack who know nothing about the law debating the law with a law student.


you seem to be a expert at intellectual masterbation


you can go blind doing that, ya know

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Democrats think that the illegals will
> eventually
> > all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is a
> > movement that is registering illegals to vote.
> I
> > wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this
> > county too. And you can bet they'll all be
> voting
> > for democrats, more free stuff for them.
>
>
> the ACLU and the NAACP are in Virginia to "help"
> the "forgotten" people vote.
>
> take a wild guess who they're going to help them
> vote for.


Whoever Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote for. Remember the ACLU was a key supporter and legal council of Rush in his "prescription shopping" criminal case.

And let us call this illegal immigration situation what it really is, a "distraction" meant to mobilize the base and something conservative talk can talk about.

Fact - the US dollar is in the tank. Under Clinton the dollar was .82 Euros and approximately $1.25 Canadian. Now $1 is 1.42 euros and on about equal with the Canadian.

Fact. Gas is through the roof - and it is getting worse. Because of the weak dollar, the international laughing stock, oil prices will continue to rise. And they will rise substantially in the next few days.

Fact. The war in Irag is costing nearly $1 Billion a week. Money we do not have and are borrowing.

Fact. The US deficit continues to rise. At the present rate the country will be bankrupt in 30 some years.

Fact It would cost nearly $100 billion to re-equip our military should we pull out of Iraq tomorrow.

Fact The war's total cost will be more than of 2 Trillion dollars. Money we just don't have.

Fact Bin Laddin has not been caught

fact. Should the Chines and OPEC decide to switch their reserves from the dollar to what they perceive as a more stable currency, we are screwed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2007 07:16AM by Radiophile.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "They are considering denying services to illegal
> aliens to a certain set of services, not all
> services. People are denied services every day for
> a myriad of reasons (too young, too old, make too
> much money, etc. not a county resident)."
>
> How do they determine who is and isn't illegal?
> They ask for ID. Who do they ask for ID? White
> people? No. Blacks? No. Hispanics? Yes. Legal and
> illegal Hispanics are asked....nobody else is.
>
> Equal protection under the law means this is
> profiling...which is unconstitutional.



where in the constitution does it say profiling is illegal?



they ask everyone for id

illegals have id because they buy ss#'s.... maybe someday they'll buy yours


the majority of illegals in the US happen to be hispanic


illegals are NOT protected under our laws because they are NOT citizens


and yet, our government in Virginia gives them healthcare, foodstamps, welfare and their kids get special help at school because they don't speak english.

and to top it off.. since they rent, they don't pay property tax

that is one of the reasons our property taxes have doubled in the last 8 years


want to talk about the crime in Fairfax commited by illegals and what they cost our court and prision system?


all this so the DEMs can buy their votes with OUR MONEY!

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no longer a dem Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Neen Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Democrats think that the illegals will
> > eventually
> > > all vote for democrats. In Maryland there is
> a
> > > movement that is registering illegals to vote.
>
> > I
> > > wouldn't be surprised if that begins in this
> > > county too. And you can bet they'll all be
> > voting
> > > for democrats, more free stuff for them.
> >
> >
> > the ACLU and the NAACP are in Virginia to
> "help"
> > the "forgotten" people vote.
> >
> > take a wild guess who they're going to help
> them
> > vote for.
>
>
> Whoever Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote for.
> Remember the ACLU was a key supporter and legal
> council of Rush in his "prescription shopping"
> criminal case.


are you saying that illegals listen to rush limbaugh?



give me a break with that inane liberal nonsense.


the aclu doesn't want people to have to show their ID in order to vote


do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > no longer a dem Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Neen Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Democrats think that the illegals will
> > > eventually
> > > > all vote for democrats. In Maryland there
> is
> > a
> > > > movement that is registering illegals to
> vote.
> >
> > > I
> > > > wouldn't be surprised if that begins in
> this
> > > > county too. And you can bet they'll all be
> > > voting
> > > > for democrats, more free stuff for them.
> > >
> > >
> > > the ACLU and the NAACP are in Virginia to
> > "help"
> > > the "forgotten" people vote.
> > >
> > > take a wild guess who they're going to help
> > them
> > > vote for.
> >
> >
> > Whoever Rush Limbaugh tells them to vote for.
> > Remember the ACLU was a key supporter and legal
> > council of Rush in his "prescription shopping"
> > criminal case.
>
>
> are you saying that illegals listen to rush
> limbaugh?
>
>
>
> give me a break with that inane liberal nonsense.
>
>
> the aclu doesn't want people to have to show their
> ID in order to vote
>
>
> do you think 9/11 was an inside job?


Why wouldnt illegals listen listen to Rush Limbaugh? Many immigrants are very hard working, have strong family ties and large families. Parents do not want their kids to engage in sex before marriage (abstinence only), they want a better life for their kids, they save their money, are against gay marriage, are strong religious people, and insist their kids do well in school - all of these are values Rush holds near and dear to his heart.

I am not stereotyping, I said many - not all. Go into a Catholic church on Sunday and see how many people you may stereotype as illegals are there. Stop by on a Saturday for a baptism and see the large families and friends celebrating that joyous event.

I do not understand why you think they would not listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Answer: They don't understand English. Russ doesn't broadcast in Spanish, as far as I know. Check the AM frequencies for Spanish and Arabic programs. Many.

My spouse has a difficult time ordering snack food at McDonald's due to the language barrier. No joke. Metro teaching its employees Spanish? Push 2 for English.

The large families are really back in home countries; hence, why billions of USA dollars keep Mexico and other Latin American countries afloat.

Unfortunately, religious demonstration/devotion does NOT reflect moral and day to day practices.

Of the four or five robberies in Fairfax County on October 29th, the police reports describes black bandits. Is this racial profiling.

Please note. I like Spanish cultures. I have enjoyed time in California, Cuba, Mexico, and Spain. I feel sorry for good, decent Hispanics that are here legally, as well as good, decent black people. Unfortunately, most illegal aliens are, indeed, Hispanic, and most robbery reported in the police report is done by blacks. And I would be willing to bet that most Hispanics are good Catholics.

"but every time you speak about the law you are just flat out wrong."

I am saying that the law violates "equal protection under the law." That is what the suit against the law is about. You may not agree with me, but those are the facts. Only a judge can determine if I am "flat out wrong," not some moron who took a Con Law case in college and thinks he is Ken Starr.

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> There is nothing worse then some hack who know
> nothing about the law debating the law with a law
> student.
>
>
> you seem to be a expert at intellectual
> masterbation
>
>
> you can go blind doing that, ya know


The guy isn't a law student. He took a law class in college. I took math in college. That doesn't make me Stephen Hawking.

As for "know nothing about the law" there is a fucking suit on this issue. If I "know nothing about the law" then neither do the lawyers who have taken the case.

Rush limbaugh is NOT a religious talk show host. If you ever listened to his show you would know that.


obviously you have an opinion without actully having any facts to back them up, but some liberal told you that Rush is BAD so you took their opinion and made it your own.... which is typical of a liberal.

>
> where in the constitution does it say profiling is
> illegal?
>
>
>

The Fourth Amendment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "but every time you speak about the law you are
> just flat out wrong."
>
> I am saying that the law violates "equal
> protection under the law." That is what the suit
> against the law is about. You may not agree with
> me, but those are the facts. Only a judge can
> determine if I am "flat out wrong," not some moron
> who took a Con Law case in college and thinks he
> is Ken Starr.

Actually, I am a practicing attorney with 17 years experience - I took ConLaw in LAW SCHOOL. You continue to harp on one point, continuing to ignore the case law that has been pointed out to you, as well as all of the other arguments/cases presented to you. Did you read the cases? Did you understand them? Or, are you just ignoring them to make a point? You continue to contend "there is a fucking suit on this issue. If I 'know nothing about the law' then neither do the lawyers who have taken the case." Need I remind you of Roy Pearson? He filed a suit too. Was he entitled to $54M for a lost pair of pants? According to your logic, he would be. PWC filed a motion to dismiss this morning.

You have a gross misunderstanding of the "equal protection clause." Again, I simply ask that you look at the ordinance and the supporting documentation from PWC, then look at the case law. By your logic, anytime an ordinance has a disparate impact on a certain group, it is per se unconstitutional. However, are you aware that illegal immigrants are forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit in VA? Is this unconstitutional? Most likely it has the largest impact on the Hispanic community. A disparate impact is not per se unconstitutional.

Finally, there has been no harm in fact. As noted above, the ordinance is not de jure discrimination. Until someone actually suffers harm from this, it should not be considered ripe for decision.

You don't have to worry, nobody would ever mistake you for Stephen Hawking.

"PWC filed a motion to dismiss this morning."

A real lawyer - or at least a competent one - would know that this kind of thing is standard practice with ALL cases and wouldn't make a big deal out of it. The fact that you did gives me an indication you are talking out of your ass.

Also, I really don't know how a lawyer has time to debate shit like this on a website - in the middle of the day - unless he is a) lying about being a lawyer, b) a very bad lawyer, c) an unemployed lawyer.

As for demonstrating that someone has actually suffered harm from this, I don't doubt that that should be a consideration. However, it isn't the ONLY consideration. That's why we have things like injunctions and precedent, because of potential harm or harm demonstrated in similar cases.

I'm no lawyer, but I understand this. Do you?

So which client are you billing for this wasted time? If this is any indication of how you spend your time as a "lawyer," you should do everyone here a favor and post your firm's name so they won't make the mistake of hiring you...(not to mention you have supposedly read all the briefs associated with the PW case, even though you are not a Constitutional lawyer and you aren't working on the case)


Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 02:57PM

Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 04:48PM

Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 05:21PM


Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 09:50PM

Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 11:53PM

Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 31, 2007 11:09AM

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rush limbaugh is NOT a religious talk show host.
> If you ever listened to his show you would know
> that.
>
>
> obviously you have an opinion without actully
> having any facts to back them up, but some liberal
> told you that Rush is BAD so you took their
> opinion and made it your own.... which is typical
> of a liberal.

I did not say Rush is a religious talk show, but religious people are a key part of his target audiance. At least that is what it says in his media sales kit.

So if Rush attracts a religious audience and, and many immigrants are religious, it is not certain, but it is no impossible that some immigrants (even illegal ones) listen to Rush.

And yes I consider myself a liberal, but you are stereotyping all liberals with your statement. Frankly, I hear Rush do that a lot also. I do not remember the last time I went to a meeting of other liberals and discussed our agenda. But basicaly, from what I understand, we do.

And why did Rush's company nominate him for a Nobel Prize and then have Rush come out and bash the prize when Al Gore won it. And no, the person that publicly nominated Rush is not in the group that actually nominates. So Rush's "nomination" as he calls it, was in reality, merely a suggestion.

I'm with Fairfax MF'er on this one. My vote goes to (b) given the amount of time committed to his flawed arguments that will not change the voting outcome(by the way, agreed that Connelley's history is not pristine, however it is a rather nominal in comparison to Toll Bros. and neighboring GOP-led county gov't relationships). He must be an in-house, gov't or non-profit lawyer who couldn't land a job with a blue-chip firm because he finished less than 80th percentile and had little chance competing on the partner track. If you are in private practice, then I suggest you bill more and argue less because at the end of the day, it will lead to nothing besides your increased anal-retentiveness. -§

For the record, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. -§

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "PWC filed a motion to dismiss this morning."
>
> A real lawyer - or at least a competent one -
> would know that this kind of thing is standard
> practice with ALL cases and wouldn't make a big
> deal out of it. The fact that you did gives me an
> indication you are talking out of your ass.

YES, you are finally getting it! You got my point exactly! You see simply filing a piece of paper with the courts does not make it so. Do you see how you kept bringing up the fact that a lawsuit was filed, so it must be unconstitutional? Do you now see how that logic is flawed? You probably don't, but at least it is a start!

> Also, I really don't know how a lawyer has time to
> debate shit like this on a website - in the middle
> of the day - unless he is a) lying about being a
> lawyer, b) a very bad lawyer, c) an unemployed
> lawyer.

Don't worry about me. But, if you must know, I am semi-retired (and, no that is not another term for unemployed). I handle a few pro-bono cases and I also do independent consulting to some companies in the area when certain situations arise for them. If you are looking at the 17 years, note that the law was a second career for me, so I did not retire at 42.

> As for demonstrating that someone has actually
> suffered harm from this, I don't doubt that that
> should be a consideration. However, it isn't the
> ONLY consideration. That's why we have things like
> injunctions and precedent, because of potential
> harm or harm demonstrated in similar cases.
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I understand this. Do you?

It appears you understand very little. You never responded to a number of questions. You did not answer: if illegal immigrants are forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit in VA, is this unconstitutional? You never answered if you read the legislative history of the PWC ordinance. You offered no rebuttal to established Supreme Court doctrine on the Disparate impact test. You are now grasping at straws.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So which client are you billing for this wasted
> time? If this is any indication of how you spend
> your time as a "lawyer," you should do everyone
> here a favor and post your firm's name so they
> won't make the mistake of hiring you...(not to
> mention you have supposedly read all the briefs
> associated with the PW case, even though you are
> not a Constitutional lawyer and you aren't working
> on the case)
>
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 02:57PM
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 04:48PM
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 05:21PM
>
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 09:50PM
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 11:53PM
>
> Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 31, 2007 11:09AM


As I noted in the previous post, I am semi-retired and do not work for a firm. Any other incorrect assumptions you wish to make about me? I think we are up to three or four bu now. I never indicated I "read the briefs." I am not sure they are publically available. What I read was the legislative history. I suggest you do the same.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It appears you understand very little.

It appears that you are a clueless douchebag, hence your "semi-retirement" after only 17 years.

You never responded to a number of questions. You did not
> answer: if illegal immigrants are forbidden from
> obtaining a concealed carry permit in VA, is this
> unconstitutional?

I don't know if it is or not. However, you could argue the case that it is constitutional because IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE 4th AMENDMENT, dumbass. Somebody applying for something and being turned down due to legal status (driver's license or concealed carry permit) is considerably different than being asked by cops to "show your papers" because you are brown skinned. A lawyer - a real lawyer and not some crank pretending to be one - would know the difference and wouldn't use the concealed carry permit as an example.

You never answered if you read
> the legislative history of the PWC ordinance.

I don't need to to know that it has the potential to violate the civil rights of LEGAL Hispanics.

You
> offered no rebuttal to established Supreme Court
> doctrine on the Disparate impact test.

It's called precedent. If the suit can demonstrate that similar laws have resulted in discrimination, you have a basis for the suit. Of course, you don't want to hear that because you have your head too far up your ass to hear anything.

You are
> now grasping at straws.

You have grasped at straws from the beginning.

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

>
> illegals are NOT protected under our laws because
> they are NOT citizens
>
>
> and yet, our government in Virginia gives them
> healthcare, foodstamps, welfare and their kids get
> special help at school because they don't speak
> english.
>
> and to top it off.. since they rent, they don't
> pay property tax
>
> that is one of the reasons our property taxes have
> doubled in the last 8 years
>
>
> want to talk about the crime in Fairfax commited
> by illegals and what they cost our court and
> prision system?
>
>
> all this so the DEMs can buy their votes with OUR
> MONEY!

Any person "in" this country is protected by our laws, whether they are legal or illegal. And yes there are "programs" they may or may not be entitled to, but thay are protected by our laws. Got a problem with that, tough. Deal with it.

And while I am not agreeing with your stereotype about renting - even if they do rent, someone is paying property tax and I am certain it is built in to the rent. And yes I know there are overcrowded houses, but that is not what you said. Although I am sure you will come back with that argument.

Ands as far as committing crime, I would like to see your stats. Yes illegal aliens commit crimes - other than being here illegally. But so do fat and not so fat, white, conservative radio talk show hosts and members of the Bush Administration - so I do not see any hard facts here.

I am not an illegal alien lover, but I am a hater of racist talk being disguised as patriotic citizenry.

Illegal Immigration is a Federal issue. Complain to your Federal Government.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > It appears you understand very little.
>
> It appears that you are a clueless douchebag,
> hence your "semi-retirement" after only 17 years.

Name calling, the true last resort. I can afford to be semi-retired and handle cases and clients that interest me.

> You never responded to a number of questions. You
> did not
> > answer: if illegal immigrants are forbidden
> from
> > obtaining a concealed carry permit in VA, is
> this
> > unconstitutional?
>
> I don't know if it is or not. However, you could
> argue the case that it is constitutional because
> IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE 4th AMENDMENT, dumbass.
> Somebody applying for something and being turned
> down due to legal status (driver's license or
> concealed carry permit) is considerably different
> than being asked by cops to "show your papers"
> because you are brown skinned. A lawyer - a real
> lawyer and not some crank pretending to be one -
> would know the difference and wouldn't use the
> concealed carry permit as an example.

You are now back on the cops asking for papers. Before you were on denial of services. The ordinance addresses two issues: 1) Criminal illegal aliens being checked for immigration status; and 2) denial of certain services to illegal aliens. Let's take them one at a time. I will try and make it simple for you. According to the ordinance, individuals will be checked when they are arrested, not simply for walking down the street. ICE has a program known as ICE ACCESS of which 287(g) powers are a component. You should look at these websites to get more information on the program. 287(g) powers have been around for over 10 years and have not been successfully challenged. A number of jurisdictions exercise them.

http://www.ice.gov/partners/dro/iceaccess.htm
http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm

Now let's focus on your denial of services, which you focused on extensively. That was the point of bringing up the concealed carry permit question. Certain services and rights are routinely denied to illegal immigrants without running afoul of the equal protection clause. The PWC documents in the legislative history do a good job of pointing these out. You really should take a look at them. They are here -- http://www.pwcgov.org/documents/bocs/agendas/2007/1002/6-A.pdf

> You never answered if you read
> > the legislative history of the PWC ordinance.
>
> I don't need to to know that it has the potential
> to violate the civil rights of LEGAL Hispanics.

Potential is not actual. Misapplied laws of any stripe have the POTENTIAL to violate the civil rights of anyone.

> You
> > offered no rebuttal to established Supreme
> Court
> > doctrine on the Disparate impact test.
>
> It's called precedent. If the suit can demonstrate
> that similar laws have resulted in discrimination,
> you have a basis for the suit. Of course, you
> don't want to hear that because you have your head
> too far up your ass to hear anything.

I am glad you know about precedent, now let's hope you can learn how it actually works. You see, when SCOTUS issues a decision, that is precedent. Precedent like the previous cases I mentioned.

> You are
> > now grasping at straws.
>
> You have grasped at straws from the beginning.

Reread your posts, they make little to no sense, and are not based on the facts of the PWC case. Now, if you can show me how 287(g) is unconstitutional and how denail of certain services to illegal immigrants is unconstitutional, and do so in a logical manner, I am willing to hear you out.

Radiophile-

You are trying to speak reason to these neo-con nutcases. Here are some things you have to assume with their mindsets:

1. Local law enforcement has the right to kill or do anything they want to illegal immigrants because they are not here legally.

2. Laws against illegal immigrants don't have unintended victims like American citizens of Hispanic origin. By arguing against these laws, opponents are really arguing in favor of having more illegal immigrants instead of for the rights of American citizens who happen to be Hispanic.

3. We neo-con nutcases are not racist. We just want the illegals to pay for the services rendered. When you demonstrate to us that they are actually doing so, then we want to make up more laws that make it more difficult for them to pay their way while we bitch about them not paying their way.

4. Deporting an illegal is the same as putting them in jail for a crime. So, if an illegal murders someone, sending them to Mexico is just as good as putting them in prison because, after all, our border is so f-ing secure in the first place.

5. Illegals are responsible for neo-cons being fat, sick and unemployed. If you get rid of the illegals, all our problems will disappear.

6. Republicans will do something about illegal immigration, just like they didn't for the 10+ years they controlled Congress and the decades they controlled the state of Virginia.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I
> am willing to hear you out.


Unlike you, I have a job and better things to do.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I
> > am willing to hear you out.
>
>
> Unlike you, I have a job and better things to do.

I am sure your employer is proud of your accomplishments with all the time you can post on here. I don't have the inclination to go back and look, but needless to say that it would take a while!

Or, one could argue, that you simply can't admit when you are wrong. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile-
>
> You are trying to speak reason to these neo-con
> nutcases. Here are some things you have to assume
> with their mindsets:
>
> 1. Local law enforcement has the right to kill or
> do anything they want to illegal immigrants
> because they are not here legally.

Agreed local law enforcement should be the police, judge and jurry and have the authority to make these life and death decissions in a split second. Fuck that checks and balances thing!

> 2. Laws against illegal immigrants don't have
> unintended victims like American citizens of
> Hispanic origin. By arguing against these laws,
> opponents are really arguing in favor of having
> more illegal immigrants instead of for the rights
> of American citizens who happen to be Hispanic.

We should make a law with no unintended victims. I will get my local elected officials on that right away.

> 3. We neo-con nutcases are not racist. We just
> want the illegals to pay for the services
> rendered. When you demonstrate to us that they are
> actually doing so, then we want to make up more
> laws that make it more difficult for them to pay
> their way while we bitch about them not paying
> their way.

I do not believe you are racists, just looking for a racial group to blame or at least divert attention from what the real problem is.

> 4. Deporting an illegal is the same as putting
> them in jail for a crime. So, if an illegal
> murders someone, sending them to Mexico is just as
> good as putting them in prison because, after all,
> our border is so f-ing secure in the first place.

Almost agreed. Hookers and tequila in Mexico. H&T supposedly are not allowed in our jails (I have been told). And our border IS secure, we spent $1`billion on a fence!

> 5. Illegals are responsible for neo-cons being
> fat, sick and unemployed. If you get rid of the
> illegals, all our problems will disappear.

Blame them illegals, blame them all. Damn them all to hell. Those dirty apes!.
(like my charletoin heston paraphrase?)

> 6. Republicans will do something about illegal
> immigration, just like they didn't for the 10+
> years they controlled Congress and the decades
> they controlled the state of Virginia.

That is why this thread is titled "WTF Democrats"

So, for those at home keeping score: That's two failed careers by Flarefax. He's from the old regime and his so are his views. Who the hell starts law school that late in life? No wonder you're semi-retired because no top firm or in-house practice will invest in you at that age with limited substantive legal experience. You're probably a contract attorney who we like to throw in a conference room with 20 other semi-useless wannabes to review 500 musty boxes of client documentation for responsiveness and privilege. Clearly someone with nothing better to do than to argue what they've learned in their first year of law school; albeit at an advanced age. What's next? Fundamentals of CivPro? -§

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Flarefax Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > I
> > > am willing to hear you out.
> >
> >
> > Unlike you, I have a job and better things to
> do.
>
> I am sure your employer is proud of your
> accomplishments with all the time you can post on
> here. I don't have the inclination to go back and
> look, but needless to say that it would take a
> while!
>
> Or, one could argue, that you simply can't admit
> when you are wrong. Either way, thanks for the
> discussion.


If PW county prevails in a court of law, then I will admit I was wrong. I assume you will do the same should PW county lose.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, for those at home keeping score: That's two
> failed careers by Flarefax. He's from the old
> regime and his so are his views. Who the hell
> starts law school that late in life? No wonder
> you're semi-retired because no top firm or
> in-house practice will invest in you at that age
> with limited substantive legal experience. You're
> probably a contract attorney who we like to throw
> in a conference room with 20 other semi-useless
> wannabes to review 500 musty boxes of client
> documentation for responsiveness and privilege.
> Clearly someone with nothing better to do than to
> argue what they've learned in their first year of
> law school; albeit at an advanced age. What's
> next? Fundamentals of CivPro? -§


I have found that anybody who has to wear their education/experience on their sleeve the way Flarefax does is usually an utter failure at their chosen profession. People who are successful don't need to drag out their education/experience to feel good about themselves.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, for those at home keeping score: That's two
> failed careers by Flarefax. He's from the old
> regime and his so are his views. Who the hell
> starts law school that late in life? No wonder
> you're semi-retired because no top firm or
> in-house practice will invest in you at that age
> with limited substantive legal experience. You're
> probably a contract attorney who we like to throw
> in a conference room with 20 other semi-useless
> wannabes to review 500 musty boxes of client
> documentation for responsiveness and privilege.
> Clearly someone with nothing better to do than to
> argue what they've learned in their first year of
> law school; albeit at an advanced age. What's
> next? Fundamentals of CivPro? -§

Yes, two failed careers that enabled me to semi-retire comfortably at age 48. I graduated law school at age 31. Hardly that much older than the average student given that the average age of matriculation is roughly 24-25. I was two to three years older. I have never participated in doc review. In fact there are many attorneys that would love to have participated in the issues that I regularly engaged in while employed full time. I started my career at a large well established, well known firm in DC. I transitioned to serve first as and in house counsel and finally the general counsel of a Fortune 100 corporation. I now do consultant work when it arises on top of pro-bono work - neither of which I need to do to make ends meet. I get to pick and choose what I find interesting. None of this is being said to brag, but rather demonstrate that all of your assumptions about me are wrong. Now, true, this is an anonymous post on the internet, and I could be lying, on the other hand, I am not. Now, I could tell you to continue to toil away at your 80hr/week firm job realizing that at the end of the week, your hourly rate is that of about a civil servant that works 40hr/week, but then I too would simply be assuming.

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Flarefax Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > I
> > > > am willing to hear you out.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unlike you, I have a job and better things to
> > do.
> >
> > I am sure your employer is proud of your
> > accomplishments with all the time you can post
> on
> > here. I don't have the inclination to go back
> and
> > look, but needless to say that it would take a
> > while!
> >
> > Or, one could argue, that you simply can't
> admit
> > when you are wrong. Either way, thanks for the
> > discussion.
>
>
> If PW county prevails in a court of law, then I
> will admit I was wrong. I assume you will do the
> same should PW county lose.

I will admit it when SCOTUS rules or refuses to hear an appeal on it, yes. All I was attempting to do in my posts is get you to look at the relevant documents - you refused for some reason. As for my education and experience, it was brought out when YOU called it into question.

Tom Donilon. That's just someone off the top of my head that fits those attributes.

80hrs/wk was pretty close when I first started out as a first year through my 4th, but now it's about 50 going into my 10th. I don't believe civil servants @ 40hrs/wk. would even proportionally come close to our comp structure. Senior attys at the DOJ and SEC barely keep pace with the first year salaries @ $165k. -§

Flarefax = Troll

I know one things for sure I won't be voting for Jeanmarie Devolites. She seems like a crook. She will give the ill aliens diplomatic imunity plus a get out of jail free card. Puts herself first just sounds right

Interesting discussions. In any event, I finally did some lawyer-like (pun) research and found some answers to my ignorance about political boundaries. I do want to be better prepared than I have been in past years. In any event, the following sites may be useful:

Sample ballot: http://www.vote-va.org/Ballot.aspx

More details: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/upcoming.htm#house

And here's a pretty interesting site: http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Voter_Information/Voter_Rights_Responsibilities.html

One more thing. For those who are against illegal immigrants - and you say most are from down south, then call the White House! Your President is not on your side

Listen closely to the words our Commander in Chief uses. Phrases like:

My fellow Americans,
God Bless America
The American economy etc

For the record, America, or American, refers to North America, Central America, and South America and some misc islands and such scattered about.

Very rarely does he refer specifically to the United States of America or USA. He uses the term "My fellow Americans" etc etc

For those that want to keep score, here is the number of times these words were used recently:

Radio Address October 27, America or American (2), United States (0)
Radio Address October 19, Ameica or American (5) United States (0)
Radio Address October 13, America or American (19) United States (5)*
State of the Union 2006 America or American (49) United States (6)

Clearly our President is looking out for ALL Americans, not just the United States of America.

Follow our leaders lead. Go to your local 7-11 and hug a day laborer!

*This speech was about the Latin American economy. I did not count anytime he used the phrase "Latin America".

I think DEVOLITES is a Evil Mexico toucher too

Someone noted that immigrants make ordering at McDonald's difficult...a complaint I hear regularly in 3D. (note: I'm using "McDonald's" as a euphemism for any service situation)


Funny story...my brother moved to a lily white area of Missouri last year, where the entire populace are native English speakers.

But, my brother tells me that his order gets fucked up out there as much, or more, than the beaners did here!

Hey, maybe folks that work at McDonald's are just plain stoopid...regardless of ethnicity!

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As for my education and experience, it was brought
> out when YOU called it into question.

"Re: WTF Democrats?
Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
Date: October 30, 2007 02:57PM

OUt of curiousity, where did you get your Constitutional law training?"


Actually, Flarefax, YOU were the one who brought it up first. Game. Set. Point.

No wonder you were such a failure as a lawyer. I don't have a law degree and just cut your balls off. I imagine...if you were ever really a lawyer...your balls were cut off and shoved down your throat the first time you stepped into a courtroom against a lawyer from Yale, Harvard or...Georgetown.

You are pitiful. You can look up shit on Wikipedia all you want. You are NOT a lawyer. Period. I deal with lawyers all of the time, and NONE of them would have made such a stupid mistake as to not check the posting record in the first place.

First rule of trial lawyers - never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

Good job, numbnuts.

HEH!

> -----
> > WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> >

> Any person "in" this country is protected by our
> laws, whether they are legal or illegal. And yes
> there are "programs" they may or may not be
> entitled to, but thay are protected by our laws.
> Got a problem with that, tough. Deal with it.
>
> And while I am not agreeing with your stereotype
> about renting - even if they do rent, someone is
> paying property tax and I am certain it is built
> in to the rent. And yes I know there are
> overcrowded houses, but that is not what you said.
> Although I am sure you will come back with that
> argument.
>
> Ands as far as committing crime, I would like to
> see your stats. Yes illegal aliens commit crimes -
> other than being here illegally. But so do fat and
> not so fat, white, conservative radio talk show
> hosts and members of the Bush Administration - so
> I do not see any hard facts here.
>
> I am not an illegal alien lover, but I am a hater
> of racist talk being disguised as patriotic
> citizenry.
>
> Illegal Immigration is a Federal issue. Complain
> to your Federal Government.



illegals are not entitled to protection under US laws because they are not US citizens.

I am not a racist because I want to end illegal immigration.... that is the line of the idiot liberals and their brainless followers.


I am willing to bet that you've never listened to conservative talk radio.

do you call fox news faux news too?


seriously, I am concerned about the people in this country.... too few people seem to have a freaking clue. and far too many take other people's opinions as their own without bothering to inform themselves about the issues


you are one of those people.

First, I did not write the piece that you were responding to. But I am answering you regardless because apparently you are too stupid to know who you are addressing.

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> illegals are not entitled to protection under US
> laws because they are not US citizens.
>

If you read the U.S. Constitution, America has to abide by the international treaties it signs. Many of those treaties include rights for people who are not citizens of the U.S. In addition, many of the arguments against laws like those passed in Prince William go back to how they impact legal residents, not just illegals.


> I am not a racist because I want to end illegal
> immigration.... that is the line of the idiot
> liberals and their brainless followers.
>

You are not a racist because you want to end illegal immigration. You are a racist for the racist and stupid things you write.
>
> I am willing to bet that you've never listened to
> conservative talk radio.
>

I have. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz are all fucking idiots who can't get their facts straight.

> do you call fox news faux news too?
>
>
I don't call it anything because it is irrelevant.

> seriously, I am concerned about the people in this
> country.... too few people seem to have a
> freaking clue. and far too many take other
> people's opinions as their own without bothering
> to inform themselves about the issues
>
>
> you are one of those people.

You are the one who is uninformed...and it shows.

Here's your conservative radio brain trust...


Rush Limbaugh: Education

He attended Southeast Missouri State University, where he earned a "D" in a speech class. (Some contend it was an "F".)[5] Limbaugh dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[2] This would have normally made him eligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War but he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.[6][2]


Sean Hannity: Education

Hannity attended St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale in Long Island, graduating in 1980 with a high school diploma. He dropped out of New York University because of financial issues, and decided to pursue a radio career.[2]


Neal Boortz: Early life & education

Boortz spent his first two years of High School at Tustin Union High School in Tustin, California. The family then transferred to Florida where he attended Pensacola High School for his Junior and Senior years. He graduated from high school in 1963 with a C- average and went back to the state of Texas to attend Texas A&M University from 1963 to 1967. Boortz states "I was in the Corps of Cadets. Fighting Seagram's Seven, to be exact, Ed Zatopek, C.O."[11][12] Boortz then attended John Marshall Law School, in Atlanta, Georgia where he graduated with a Law Degree.[13] (before you get too exciting about the law degree, the school wasn't accredited by the American Bar Association until 2005).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6NpK9rJ_N4 really funny video

I had someone here research Fortune 100 companies listed since 2000 and GCs who were previously appointed with a JD from UVA (excluding current UVA Fortune 100 GCs) and they came up with 3 names including the one I mentioned above. Either he's (1) lying, (2) tweaked a few details (3) was a GC of a Fortune 100 subsidiary that was acquired, thus losing the GC title upon acquisition, or (4) I guessed right on the first try by his implied silence. -§

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > As for my education and experience, it was
> brought
> > out when YOU called it into question.
>
> "Re: WTF Democrats?
> Posted by: Flarefax (IP Logged)
> Date: October 30, 2007 02:57PM
>
> OUt of curiousity, where did you get your
> Constitutional law training?"
>
>
> Actually, Flarefax, YOU were the one who brought
> it up first. Game. Set. Point.
>
> No wonder you were such a failure as a lawyer. I
> don't have a law degree and just cut your balls
> off. I imagine...if you were ever really a
> lawyer...your balls were cut off and shoved down
> your throat the first time you stepped into a
> courtroom against a lawyer from Yale, Harvard
> or...Georgetown.
>
> You are pitiful. You can look up shit on Wikipedia
> all you want. You are NOT a lawyer. Period. I deal
> with lawyers all of the time, and NONE of them
> would have made such a stupid mistake as to not
> check the posting record in the first place.
>
> First rule of trial lawyers - never ask a question
> you don't know the answer to.
>
> Good job, numbnuts.
>
> HEH!

Yes, genius, I asked a question, it was YOU who proceeded to make statements sucn as: "I would imagine the lawyers working on the case have more experience and better education to deal with this case than you do;" "But I do know that if you are, you are a very poor one. So much so, in fact, that I appear to know the law better than you do, which is apparently a sad commentary on the state of the UVA law school;"not some moron who took a Con Law case in college and thinks he is Ken Starr;" "The guy isn't a law student. He took a law class in college;" "A real lawyer - or at least a competent one - would know that this kind of thing is standard practice with ALL cases and wouldn't make a big deal out of it. The fact that you did gives me an indication you are talking out of your ass;" "he is a) lying about being a lawyer, b) a very bad lawyer, c) an unemployed lawyer;" "It appears that you are a clueless douchebag, hence your "semi-retirement" after only 17 years;" and "A lawyer - a real lawyer and not some crank pretending to be one - would know the difference and wouldn't use the concealed carry permit as an example."

I asked a question, you made wrong assumptions. Do you see the difference? Why do you ignore facts? You did it in the school funding thread and you are doing it here.

It is actually "game, set, MATCH." Get your goddamned metaphors right if you are going to use them at all.

hahahah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6NpK9rJ_N4 really
> funny video


At least the guy admits he's a racist, unlike some folks here.

More pointless than funny, but to each his own.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It is actually "game, set, MATCH." Get your
> goddamned metaphors right if you are going to use
> them at all.


Yeah. I messed that one up. I did get a "goddamned" out of you, though. I can only assume that last one cut pretty deep, you moron.

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had someone here research Fortune 100 companies
> listed since 2000 and GCs who were previously
> appointed with a JD from UVA (excluding current
> UVA Fortune 100 GCs) and they came up with 3 names
> including the one I mentioned above. Either he's
> (1) lying, (2) tweaked a few details (3) was a GC
> of a Fortune 100 subsidiary that was acquired,
> thus losing the GC title upon acquisition, or (4)
> I guessed right on the first try by his implied
> silence. -§

I am not Tom Donilon. I don't quite have the political pedigree that he possesses. You are closest on #3.

As for your statement about salaries earlier, a GS-11 would make about $130K at 80hrs/week. GS-11 is pretty standard for many starting attorneys with the gov't.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I had someone here research Fortune 100
> companies
> > listed since 2000 and GCs who were previously
> > appointed with a JD from UVA (excluding current
> > UVA Fortune 100 GCs) and they came up with 3
> names
> > including the one I mentioned above. Either
> he's
> > (1) lying, (2) tweaked a few details (3) was a
> GC
> > of a Fortune 100 subsidiary that was acquired,
> > thus losing the GC title upon acquisition, or
> (4)
> > I guessed right on the first try by his implied
> > silence. -§
>
> I am not Tom Donilon. I don't quite have the
> political pedigree that he possesses. You are
> closest on #3.
>
> As for your statement about salaries earlier, a
> GS-11 would make about $130K at 80hrs/week. GS-11
> is pretty standard for many starting attorneys
> with the gov't.


Naw. You picked 3 because it was the most face-saving.

You are a liar and you know it. Did you take some paralegal courses at DeVry or something?

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Naw. You picked 3 because it was the most
> face-saving.
>
> You are a liar and you know it. Did you take some
> paralegal courses at DeVry or something?

I picked #3 because it is a fact. But you don't care about facts. You are either 1.) a liar, or 2.) not too bright. You flat out lied in the school funding thread and you misrepresented the PWC ordinance in this one. I doubt you ever read it.

I enjoy a decent debate on topics, but you are simply looking for confrontation. I believe Jester would refer to you as a troll.

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I enjoy a decent debate on topics, but you are
> simply looking for confrontation. I believe
> Jester would refer to you as a troll.


Nope. Trolls are individuals who flaunt education they don't have and who attack people for presenting an opinion different than their own by saying that they are "not too bright." They also say things like "I enjoy a decent debate," yet keep rising to the bait of someone fucking with them because they, in fact, are the ones who are "not too bright."

Get where I am coming from Chuckles? ;-)

Leave me alone! I'm just a faggot who likes to suck my own balls. Waaaaa!

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flarefax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I enjoy a decent debate on topics, but you are
> > simply looking for confrontation. I believe
> > Jester would refer to you as a troll.
>
>
> Nope. Trolls are individuals who flaunt education
> they don't have and who attack people for
> presenting an opinion different than their own by
> saying that they are "not too bright." They also
> say things like "I enjoy a decent debate," yet
> keep rising to the bait of someone fucking with
> them because they, in fact, are the ones who are
> "not too bright."
>
> Get where I am coming from Chuckles? ;-)

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but you are not entitled to invent or misrepresent facts.

Ok, I didn't think Tom was an exact match for his political views on paper are hardly similar to yours in this forum (FNM senior management is overwhelmingly DEM and as are his PAC contributions), but his age was strikingly similar. The other 2 hits are moot since you were a sub-GC and I don't have the time, resources or standard of care to have org charts pulled and chron created of Fortune 100 M&A activity.....LOL. My comment re: comp was referring to senior gov't counsel vs. 1st yr comp (a typical 5th or 6th yr gov't atty (GS-14+) earns significantly less than a 1st yr at top tier firms when you include bonus and/or success sharing). Then again, who actually stays in the gov't as a lawyer for longer than 3 years anyway...LOL?

This was a fun game while it lasted, but my down time has vanished. No hard feelings. -§

Flarefax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but you
> are not entitled to invent or misrepresent facts.


A difference in the interpretation of the facts isn't the same as "inventing" or "misrepresenting" the facts. You would think as "a lawyer" you would understand that, which once again leads me to believe that you are either lying about being a lawyer or you are a very bad one.

>>>>Does everyone here realize that "Neen" is Christine Arakelian, Hunter Mill District school board candidate? Your true colors shine through.<<<

Are you nuts? I am certainly NOT her. I don't even live in Reston, as I've made clear. I've also made clear that my kids went to TJ and are no longer in FCPS. Does any of that sound even REMOTELY like Christine?

Do you really think any candidate has time to hang around here? Sheeze. You are a moron, at best.

senator webb signed that ridiculous letter to Rush limbaughs corporate partners about the "phoney soldier" comment which Rush sold for 2 million


senator webb just sent another letter to the president signed by very few dems telling him that he can not attack Iran without congresional approval.


our senator webb has obviously been bought by the lefties in the dem party

he is playing politics using the men and women in our military as pawns

he is a disgrace.

as is the leadership of the democratic party.

In comparison to the leadership we've endured for the past 7 years, the DEMS are a remarkable improvement on every front. That's where my money is going. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In comparison to the leadership we've endured for
> the past 7 years, the DEMS are a remarkable
> improvement on every front. That's where my money
> is going. -§



well you certainly are in the minority.

only 11% think the dems are doing a good job.

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In comparison to the leadership we've endured
> for
> > the past 7 years, the DEMS are a remarkable
> > improvement on every front. That's where my
> money
> > is going. -§
>
>
>
> well you certainly are in the minority.
>
> only 11% think the dems are doing a good job.

No. 11 percent thinks CONGRESS is doing a good job. It doesn't mean people don't blame the Republicans for stonewalling.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:

"How do they determine who is and isn't illegal? They ask for ID. Who do they ask for ID? White people? No. Blacks? No. Hispanics? Yes. Legal and illegal Hispanics are asked....nobody else is.

Equal protection under the law means this is profiling...which is unconstitutional."

AND

Fairfax MF---er Wrote:
"I don't know if it is or not. However, you could argue the case that it is constitutional because IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE 4th AMENDMENT, dumbass. Somebody applying for something and being turned down due to legal status (driver's license or concealed carry permit) is considerably different than being asked by cops to "show your papers" because you are brown skinned."

---------------------------------------------------

Hey, genius boys the United States Supreme Court has ruled UNANIMOUSLY (9-0) that officers who question suspects about immigration status during detention are NOT violating the Fourth Amendment. Officers do NOT need to have reasonable suspicion to question suspects about immigration status. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure. If the PWC ordinance only deals with questioning criminals it would appear to be constitent with what Fairfax MF---er calls precedent.

I doubt this will shut you up, but it should. Is this "cut and dry" enough for the two of you?

I bet we can spend 1M and hire a bunch of Chinese workers to build us the Great Wall of China here on the border at 750 mile and 23ft tall.......

But i guess then they would blow a hole through it....... Oh well at least we can say we tried.....


Instead, maybe with the help of the government & Big businesses, we can direct jobs to South America.

DEVOLITES is soft on illegals she is a evil Mexico toucher too. Just look around the her 34th district such as Annandale we have been invaded they are everywhere.
So she wants to give them dipomatic treatment and a drivers license plus a get out of jail free card. The stand around stakeing out their piece of the median strip by the hundreds crossing the street in herds they deaficate behind the shopping centers and urinate in the bushes. They throw their trash everywhere and they carry third world diseases to this area. The extra money they have is spend on beer in which they gather together in the shadows to get drunk. Thanks alot DEVOLITES

no longer a dem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > > WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> > >
>
> > Any person "in" this country is protected by
> our
> > laws, whether they are legal or illegal. And
> yes
> > there are "programs" they may or may not be
> > entitled to, but they are protected by our
> laws.
> > Got a problem with that, tough. Deal with it.
> >
> > And while I am not agreeing with your
> stereotype
> > about renting - even if they do rent, someone
> is
> > paying property tax and I am certain it is
> built
> > in to the rent. And yes I know there are
> > overcrowded houses, but that is not what you
> said.
> > Although I am sure you will come back with that
> > argument.
> >
> > Ands as far as committing crime, I would like
> to
> > see your stats. Yes illegal aliens commit crimes
> -
> > other than being here illegally. But so do fat
> and
> > not so fat, white, conservative radio talk show
> > hosts and members of the Bush Administration -
> so
> > I do not see any hard facts here.
> >
> > I am not an illegal alien lover, but I am a
> hater
> > of racist talk being disguised as patriotic
> > citizenry.
> >
> > Illegal Immigration is a Federal issue.
> Complain
> > to your Federal Government.
>
>
>
> illegals are not entitled to protection under US
> laws because they are not US citizens.
>
> I am not a racist because I want to end illegal
> immigration.... that is the line of the idiot
> liberals and their brainless followers.
>
>
> I am willing to bet that you've never listened to
> conservative talk radio.
>
> do you call fox news faux news too?
>
>
> seriously, I am concerned about the people in this
> country.... too few people seem to have a
> freaking clue. and far too many take other
> people's opinions as their own without bothering
> to inform themselves about the issues
>
>
> you are one of those people.


You are subject to and protected by the "laws" of this country if you are in this country whether you are a citizen or not. US "Laws" apply to citizens, tourists, legal residents who are not citizens, and members of the US armed services who are not citizens. US laws also apply to diplomatic workers - and don't give me any of that diplomatic immunity shit - we treat their diplomats only as well as their country treats ours. Basically, if you are a person and have one body part on US soil, you are protected by our "laws" Got a problem with that? Tough! Deal with it!

And as far as listening to conservative talk radio, I listen every day. I may laugh and I may get angry at the falsehoods they present as facts, but I do listen to conservative talk radio.

As for the rest of your argument, you are "attacking the man, not the issue".

You made a statement that was flat out wrong. I did not say "You are a ditto head who believes that the Iraq war was justified by 9/11", I did not because I do not attack the man and make assumptions about the man. I will debate the man with facts. But even if the man is dumb as a box of rocks, I will do my best not to mention it.

The law is the law is the law.

But what you said is flat out absolutely wrong. Tell me sir, what "laws" in the US do not apply to illegals?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2007 09:52PM by Radiophile.

MG3151980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Hey, genius boys the United States Supreme Court
> has ruled UNANIMOUSLY (9-0) that officers who
> question suspects about immigration status during
> detention are NOT violating the Fourth Amendment.
> Officers do NOT need to have reasonable suspicion
> to question suspects about immigration status.
> Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere
> police questioning does not constitute a seizure.
> If the PWC ordinance only deals with questioning
> criminals it would appear to be constitent with
> what Fairfax MF---er calls precedent.
>
> I doubt this will shut you up, but it should. Is
> this "cut and dry" enough for the two of you?

Well, having the name of the actual case might help. If you feel so confident about it, let's see the actual case so we can decide if it applies in this instance.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MG3151980 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Hey, genius boys the United States Supreme
> Court
> > has ruled UNANIMOUSLY (9-0) that officers who
> > question suspects about immigration status
> during
> > detention are NOT violating the Fourth
> Amendment.

Last time I was arrested, the officers questioned me about the Lindberg baby, D B Coopers money, and that situation in Canada I would rather not have to explain, again

Officers can question about whatever they want during a detention. I fail to see your point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2007 02:40PM by Radiophile.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, I did not write the piece that you were
> responding to. But I am answering you regardless
> because apparently you are too stupid to know who
> you are addressing.
>
> no longer a dem Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> > illegals are not entitled to protection under
> US
> > laws because they are not US citizens.
> >
>
> If you read the U.S. Constitution, America has to
> abide by the international treaties it signs. Many
> of those treaties include rights for people who
> are not citizens of the U.S. In addition, many of
> the arguments against laws like those passed in
> Prince William go back to how they impact legal
> residents, not just illegals.
>
>
> > I am not a racist because I want to end illegal
> > immigration.... that is the line of the idiot
> > liberals and their brainless followers.
> >
>
> You are not a racist because you want to end
> illegal immigration. You are a racist for the
> racist and stupid things you write.
> >
> > I am willing to bet that you've never listened
> to
> > conservative talk radio.
> >
>
> I have. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal
> Boortz are all fucking idiots who can't get their
> facts straight.
>
> > do you call fox news faux news too?
> >
> >
> I don't call it anything because it is
> irrelevant.
>
> > seriously, I am concerned about the people in
> this
> > country.... too few people seem to have a
> > freaking clue. and far too many take other
> > people's opinions as their own without
> bothering
> > to inform themselves about the issues
> >
> >
> > you are one of those people.
>
> You are the one who is uninformed...and it shows.







The US constitution says Americans have to abide by international law even if it threatens our soverignty?

are you for real??

what international law say that a country has to let everyone in without registering or becoming a citizen?




liberal moron.