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.