Grijalva invites Ashcroft to see vigilante 'justice'

Amazing, isn't it?

between their pro-abort stance and their pro-China stance, would have directed the INS to give special consideration to such cases.

Immigration Judges do not work in the same system as the Federal Judges.

It's a complete different system called the EOIR (Executive Office of Immigration Review).

You can read about them here: Deport Aliens

Well, you certainly must be a strange sort of Catholic if you would turn in the pope. I certainly won't bring my kids up to regard such behavior as Catholic.

Where did I say Skinheads? Aryans? Klansmen?

Did I mention Spencer? Where?

Well, you certainly must be a strange sort of Catholic if you would turn in the pope.

Is the Pope above the law?

You ought to settle down a bit. What you are posting here is precisely my point. The federal government certainly has the power to deport "illegal aliens". The Fifth Amendment requires that, though they be not citizens of the US, they are nonetheless entitled to due process of law. That means hearings, representation, decision-making by dispassionate and uninterested magistrates and the rest. As with all other potential prosecutions, there is prosecutorial discretion which means that the prosecuting authorities may choose to prosecute or NOT as THEY see fit not as a bunch of silly hobbyists running around in pickups in the desert see fit. The same standards apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Likewise, the federal government and the state governments and their subsidiaries are restrained in civil matters by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, can file or not file civil actions and can seek settlements of suits filed against them on any terms THEY choose with or without public approval.

Are you getting the picture here? Although Congresscritter Tommy Temper Tantrum does not like it and although the boys in the pick up trucks don't like it, your federal government and mine and your state government, my state government and most other state governments simply do not choose to do what you want. This is nothing new. Most conservatives are all too used to their governments NOT doing what they want, law or no law.

If the "illegals" are here, those amendments also provide them with guarantees of various sorts which is why California has been ordered not to apply the result of the referendum which destroyed its Republican Party and, the other states understand implicitly that they will be treated likewise if they try to deprive the "illegals" of anything WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Now, you might try to seek a federal court order in the nature of a mandamus (we command) ordering the federales to enforce their immigration laws and you MIGHT be successful but I doubt it.

One thing is for sure. A bunch of guys in pickup trucks (not Skinheads, not KKK, not whatever, just a bunch of good ol' boys, citizens, voters and veterans) are NOT going to force the government's hand.

What's more, plenty of people disagree with the idea that the government should knuckle under to you. Why do you suppose that all those governments are looking the other way? Is it because politicians are looking forward to getting themselves defeated?

Do you bring the "Shut up, jerk" style with you when you are cruising the desert in your pickup truck? How very impressive! How terribly effective!

I am not a Mexican citizen. I am a conservative and a Catholic. The US does much that I disagree with and most foreign nations do even more that I disagree with. I would think that you would also favor the Mexicans excluding Guatamalans, et al., lest they too cross that golden border with the USA.

Last year 8,344 Guatemalans were apprehended trying to cross the border...but I suppose that's OK with you as long as they were Catholic.

1. As many as necessary to change American demographics to the point where Roe vs. Wade and the American Holocuast are ended. About 45 million have been slaughtered by surgical abortions alone since 1973. Enough is enough. When Roe vs. Wade is gone and abortion is illegal, I will be much more amenable to discussions of border enforcement.

2. I am not terribly comfortable with immigration laws at all, particularly those which have been designed to favor or disfavor particular countries. Other than the short-lived Alien and Sedition laws which destroyed the Federalist Party by 1800, we did without immigration laws altogether for a very long time. Those familiar with early twentieth century proto-Planned Barrenhood enthusiast writers like Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard, and Madison Grant, among many others, ought to share the qualms. We have had anti-Chinese quotas in the 19th Century for pure racial purposes to keep America white. We have had other national quota laws on immigration to resist Catholic immigration and Jewish immigration. All of these make me very uncomfortable. Present day reality may make it necessary to be more rigorous in screening any immigrant. I tend to agree with Peggy Noonan that there is nothing wrong with particular scrutiny of particular nationality or even religious groups from which the actual terrorists have been sent to our country. As she says, special scrutiny of, for example, Muslim young to middle-aged adult males is justified as it would be justified to give particular scrutiny to blond, blue-eyed Irish-American females who write books and columns for a living if that proves to be a group disproportionately providing terrorists. I would also agree with laws that require, as our immigration laws formerly did, a minimum degree of occupational competence to qualify as an immigrant, but NOT a higher-education-based credentialism.

3. If we are going to retain all these socialist programs, we can spread the burden nationwide. I would prefer that we get rid of the socialist programs, save all of us a tremendous amount of money, unemploy liberal bureaucrats and do it across the board affecting everyone equally, rather than trying to restrict unconstitutionally the effects to burden only Mexicans or only immigrants of whatever nationality.

4. It is certainly a legitimate function of the US government to provide national security against any terrorists, domestic or foreign, natural born or immigrant, legally immigrant or not. Indeed, that is one of the few genuine excuses for government. The 9/11 butchers apparently entered legally. We cannot, however, afford, as a nation, to fold our military and waste it on border patrol. As ever, there ARE legitimate interests of the United States (not the United Nations) which must be protected by projections of American military force (see the seminal works of Alfred Thayer Mahan, USN) or the credible threat of same coupled with adequate funding, readiness, and weaponry. The only way to minimize the personnel along the borders AND coasts and the cost of same while securing borders and coasts in order to continue the ability of the US to project military force as necessary abroad would seem to be the old Korean War Douglas MacArthur idea of a cobalt strip laid around our entire perimeter. I don't really care for that image. The Statue of Liberty seems a better national image than a cobalt curtain.

5. It is not racist to address such questions or to take a position of advocacy on either side unless there is something inherently racist in the presentation as there certainly is not in your presentation. Why? Because we are Americans and used to civilized debate as a national way of life. Finally, though you did not ask, the proper agency for the translation of public policy into reality is, as it always has been, the duly established federal and state governments of our country and NOT self-appointed citizen groups who think they have some business substituting themselves for legitimate government authority.

I trust that my answers are as respectful as your questions were. God bless you and yours.

The Canadian and Mexican intellectuals have that in common with most of our "intellectuals" as well.

I have simply been away from my computer for many hours. See #369. I tend to answer most polite questions such as yours. Not always as the questioner might answer but I usually answer such questions.

Do you bring the "Shut up, jerk" style with you when you are cruising the desert in your pickup truck? How very impressive! How terribly effective!

Again, with your idiotic stereotypes. I don't drink beer. I'm not a redneck. I don't own a pickup truck. I don't carry a high-powered rifle. Heck, I've yet to participated in an ABP or CDP mission to patrol the border area.

And, I say "Shut up, jerk" or whatever when I see someone lying and spewing baseless nonsense without backing up their accusations - which is precisely what you've done here. So, Shut the hell up, jerk.

I am not a Mexican citizen. I am a conservative and a Catholic. The US does much that I disagree with and most foreign nations do even more that I disagree with. I would think that you would also favor the Mexicans excluding Guatamalans, et al., lest they too cross that golden border with the USA.

You miss my point (and so many others) entirely. I too think that Mexico is perfectly within their right to keep out the Guatemaleans. Just as we are in our right to keep people from Mexico and any other country out of our nation. My point was that you call everyone a racist who wants to stop border intrusions across our border. My question was whether Mexico is also racist (in your twisted mind) for keeping Guatemaleans from crossing their border.

But it all went over your pathetic, air-filled, make-believe lawyer head.

Well, Mexicans seeking to live free and prosper will feel relieved.

If you insist, Mexico is obviously not racist in its southern border enforcement since the race seeking to enter Mexico is the same race that resides in Mexico: a mix of Spanish with various Western Hemisphere Indian ancestries. What an uncommonly silly question.

The fact remains that the US government and apparently the newly elected Arizona government and I have to believe Greyout Davis's government in California and probably the governments of Texas and New Mexico are not really hot to enforce these immigration laws. Many other laws are not enforced either by any or all of those governments. This is the historic nature of all governments. The elected officials appear to disagree with you other than one fringe Congresscritter from Colorado who probably won't last much longer. No one cares more about personal occupational survival than the polecats who are politicians. Why do you suppose they ignore you and do not do what you want them to do? Do you think they want to be defeated? Don't you think they want to be re-elected? There is a clue here somewhere.

As to your last sentence, you are utterly ignorant of the law buit apparently like to tell yourself otherwise. Insult me all you please. It carries no weight and proves nothing. I will not tell you to shut up. You do not frustrate me. I will instead encourage you to keep on posting. Your emotional makeup is more obvious with each passing post. It is one more reason why you are not in charge and never likely to be.

I do not miss your point. I simply disagree with your point and I see no reason to change my mind on that.

Well, I wish they were not apprehended but, otherwise, yes. It is also generally OK with elected public officials, isn't it? Also, there are those who have posted here that for each one apprehended two enter. So, triply yes.

I also have no concern if they are Evangelicals or Pentecostals. Or just pro-lifers.

Lying???? Specify the lies and post numbers.

What an uncommonly silly question.

...not to the rest of us who understand the point he is making. Apparently, it went right over your head.

LOL!

The elected officials appear to disagree with you other than one fringe Congresscritter from Colorado who probably won't last much longer.

He was just reelected in Novemebre, by a 2-to-1 ratio.