Guest AnAmericanCitizen Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting illegal alien gang members?.....AAC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They're suing them. Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas. The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint. "It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. "This is more of a proactive approach." But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth. "If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to tell if they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective." Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in the Los Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country's most notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street. The Los Angeles city attorney's suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster Crips covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too broad. Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the authority to arrest without cause. Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members, and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges. Los Angeles now has 33 permanent injunctions involving 50 gangs, and studies have shown they do reduce crime, said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Whites Right Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting illegal alien gang members?.....AAC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They're suing them. Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas. The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint. "It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. "This is more of a proactive approach." But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth. "If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to tell if they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective." Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in the Los Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country's most notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street. The Los Angeles city attorney's suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster Crips covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too broad. Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the authority to arrest without cause. Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members, and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges. Los Angeles now has 33 permanent injunctions involving 50 gangs, and studies have shown they do reduce crime, said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone - neighborhoods where suspected gang members live and are most active. Some injunctions set curfews for members and ban them from possessing alcohol in public areas - even if they're of legal drinking age. Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in jail. Prosecutors say the possibility of a jail stay - however short - is a strong deterrent, even for gang members who've already served hard time for other crimes. "Seven months in jail is a big penalty for sitting on the front porch or riding in the car with your gang buddies," said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant city attorney for Wichita Falls. Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales gang after escalating violence with a rival gang, including about 50 drive-by shootings in less than a year in that North Texas city of 100,000. Since then, crime has dropped about 13 percent in the safety zone and real estate values are climbing, Hegglund said. Other cities hope for similar results. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued four gangs in June after an "explosion" in gang violence, seven months after filing the city's first gang-related civil injunction. Fort Worth sued 10 members of the Northcide Four Trey Gangsta Crips in May after two gang members were killed in escalating violence, said Assistant City Attorney Chris Mosley. "Our hope is that these defendants will be scared into compliance just by having these injunctions against them," Mosley said. However, some former gang members say such legal maneuvers wouldn't have stopped them. Usamah Anderson, 30, of Fort Worth, said he began stealing cars and got involved with gangs as a homeless 11-year-old. He was arrested numerous times for theft and spent time in juvenile facilities. Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his friends would have simply moved outside the safety zone. "That's the life you live, so you're going to find a way to maneuver around it," said Anderson, a truck driver who abandoned the gang life about seven years ago and has started a church to help young gang members. The ACLU and other critics of gang injunctions favor community programs. The Rev. Jack Crane, pastor of Truevine Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, is helping Anderson's group provide gang members with counseling, shoes and other resources needed to help them escape that life. "We don't want to lose another generation," Crane said. Some residents in the Fort Worth safety zone say they feel better with the injunction in place. Phoebe Picazo, who recently moved to the city to care for her elderly parents, said she hears gunfire almost every night. "This has always been a quiet community with a lot of seniors, but now we're having to keep our doors locked," Picazo said. "With the injunction, I feel better for my folks." Where I live it is illegal to gather with more than 6 people.It is considered a gang. Not that they enforce it but they could I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Igor The Terrible Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 When government (at all levels) has a few extra bucks to chip in and set up an idiotic program in a futile attempt to address the problem (that is, after it become unsolvable), deploys it, and when it proves to be a total failure, they blame the illegal problem on a host of unrelated issues. Soon thereafter, when the public is completely confused about the original issue, very easy to do, they ink and pass a law that will entail rounding up illegals and deporting them. So soon as the CLU catches wind of it, they scream and start sounding off the warning bells and all the left wing loonies come out of the woodwork, in full force, protesting the despicable, unfair law. Later, it is overturned and the news media gets word of it, they create a newer version of the same issue all over again. Then the same bunch of worthless, know-nothing/do-nothing politicians seeking re-election "demand action"make more promises about "fixing" the problem. After they are re-elected and their wallets filled, they do a reality reboot and the the same shit runs all over again--except this with fancy running boards and tail fins left over from their re- election campaign (Try and look at the process in the same light as software upgrades) But how is it financed? Now this is the tricky part... if it's a demo'rat you can count on your taxes going up and be assured that nothing gets done. If it's a republiscum behind it, they will fund the program with a tax cut and be assured that nothing will get done-- and the next administration will be left holding the bag. It's called business as usual in Washington DC. On Jul 29, 7:03 pm, AnAmericanCitizen <NoAmne...@earthlink.net> wrote: > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Smith Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... > > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting > illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated > Press Writer > Sun Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET > > FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug > dealing and > graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: > They're > suing them. > > Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against > gang > members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out > together on > street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas. > > The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can > escalate. They > also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who > often are found > with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow > gang members > to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint. > > "It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant > prosecutor in > Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a > gang. "This is > more of a proactive approach." > > But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful > activities and > unfairly targeting minority youth. > > "If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to > tell if > they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter > Bibring, an > attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. > "And it's > all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective." > > Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in > the Los > Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country's > most > notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street. > > The Los Angeles city attorney's suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster > Crips > covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too > broad. > > Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in > 1992 but the > U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the > authority to > arrest without cause. > > Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang > members, > and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges. > > Los Angeles now has 33 permanent injunctions involving 50 gangs, and > studies have > shown they do reduce crime, said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los > Angeles > City Attorney's Office. > > The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, > carrying > weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols > in a safety > zone - neighborhoods where suspected gang members live and are most > active. Some > injunctions set curfews for members and ban them from possessing alcohol > in public > areas - even if they're of legal drinking age. > > Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in > jail. > Prosecutors say the possibility of a jail stay - however short - is a > strong > deterrent, even for gang members who've already served hard time for other > crimes. > > "Seven months in jail is a big penalty for sitting on the front porch or > riding in > the car with your gang buddies," said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant > city attorney > for Wichita Falls. > > Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales gang > after > escalating violence with a rival gang, including about 50 drive-by > shootings in less > than a year in that North Texas city of 100,000. > > Since then, crime has dropped about 13 percent in the safety zone and real > estate > values are climbing, Hegglund said. > > Other cities hope for similar results. > > San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued four gangs in June after > an > "explosion" in gang violence, seven months after filing the city's first > gang-related > civil injunction. > > Fort Worth sued 10 members of the Northcide Four Trey Gangsta Crips in May > after two > gang members were killed in escalating violence, said Assistant City > Attorney Chris > Mosley. > > "Our hope is that these defendants will be scared into compliance just by > having > these injunctions against them," Mosley said. > > However, some former gang members say such legal maneuvers wouldn't have > stopped > them. > > Usamah Anderson, 30, of Fort Worth, said he began stealing cars and got > involved with > gangs as a homeless 11-year-old. He was arrested numerous times for theft > and spent > time in juvenile facilities. > > Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his > friends would > have simply moved outside the safety zone. > > "That's the life you live, so you're going to find a way to maneuver > around it," said > Anderson, a truck driver who abandoned the gang life about seven years ago > and has > started a church to help young gang members. > > The ACLU and other critics of gang injunctions favor community programs. > The Rev. > Jack Crane, pastor of Truevine Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, is > helping > Anderson's group provide gang members with counseling, shoes and other > resources > needed to help them escape that life. > > "We don't want to lose another generation," Crane said. > > Some residents in the Fort Worth safety zone say they feel better with the > injunction > in place. > > Phoebe Picazo, who recently moved to the city to care for her elderly > parents, said > she hears gunfire almost every night. > > "This has always been a quiet community with a lot of seniors, but now > we're having > to keep our doors locked," Picazo said. "With the injunction, I feel > better for my > folks." Wonder if that would work with the cult "White House" gang?!?!?!? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective." "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... > > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting > illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated > Press Writer > Sun Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET > > FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug > dealing and > graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: > They're > suing them. > > Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against > gang > members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out > together on > street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas. > > The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can > escalate. They > also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who > often are found > with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow > gang members > to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint. > > "It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant > prosecutor in > Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a > gang. "This is > more of a proactive approach." > > But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful > activities and > unfairly targeting minority youth. > > "If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to > tell if > they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter > Bibring, an > attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. > "And it's > all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective." > > Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in > the Los > Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country's > most > notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street. > > The Los Angeles city attorney's suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster > Crips > covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too > broad. > > Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in > 1992 but the > U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the > authority to > arrest without cause. > > Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang > members, > and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges. > > Los Angeles now has 33 permanent injunctions involving 50 gangs, and > studies have > shown they do reduce crime, said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los > Angeles > City Attorney's Office. > > The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, > carrying > weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols > in a safety > zone - neighborhoods where suspected gang members live and are most > active. Some > injunctions set curfews for members and ban them from possessing alcohol > in public > areas - even if they're of legal drinking age. > > Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in > jail. > Prosecutors say the possibility of a jail stay - however short - is a > strong > deterrent, even for gang members who've already served hard time for other > crimes. > > "Seven months in jail is a big penalty for sitting on the front porch or > riding in > the car with your gang buddies," said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant > city attorney > for Wichita Falls. > > Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales gang > after > escalating violence with a rival gang, including about 50 drive-by > shootings in less > than a year in that North Texas city of 100,000. > > Since then, crime has dropped about 13 percent in the safety zone and real > estate > values are climbing, Hegglund said. > > Other cities hope for similar results. > > San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued four gangs in June after > an > "explosion" in gang violence, seven months after filing the city's first > gang-related > civil injunction. > > Fort Worth sued 10 members of the Northcide Four Trey Gangsta Crips in May > after two > gang members were killed in escalating violence, said Assistant City > Attorney Chris > Mosley. > > "Our hope is that these defendants will be scared into compliance just by > having > these injunctions against them," Mosley said. > > However, some former gang members say such legal maneuvers wouldn't have > stopped > them. > > Usamah Anderson, 30, of Fort Worth, said he began stealing cars and got > involved with > gangs as a homeless 11-year-old. He was arrested numerous times for theft > and spent > time in juvenile facilities. > > Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his > friends would > have simply moved outside the safety zone. > > "That's the life you live, so you're going to find a way to maneuver > around it," said > Anderson, a truck driver who abandoned the gang life about seven years ago > and has > started a church to help young gang members. > > The ACLU and other critics of gang injunctions favor community programs. > The Rev. > Jack Crane, pastor of Truevine Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, is > helping > Anderson's group provide gang members with counseling, shoes and other > resources > needed to help them escape that life. > > "We don't want to lose another generation," Crane said. > > Some residents in the Fort Worth safety zone say they feel better with the > injunction > in place. > > Phoebe Picazo, who recently moved to the city to care for her elderly > parents, said > she hears gunfire almost every night. > > "This has always been a quiet community with a lot of seniors, but now > we're having > to keep our doors locked," Picazo said. "With the injunction, I feel > better for my > folks." > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting > illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC When we get more Republicans in the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Whites Right Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message news:46adf698$0$8971$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting > illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC When we get more Republicans in the Senate. As soon as some illegals rape and kill a relative of Kennedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadicalModerate Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: > > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting > > illegal > > alien gang members?.....AAC > When we get more Republicans in the Senate. No new laws are needed, the ones we have should work just fine. -- The published From: address is a trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "RadicalModerate" <radicalmoderate@attnn.com> wrote in message news:f8kv2a$4vb$1@reader2.panix.com... > In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: >> > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and >> > deporting >> > illegal >> > alien gang members?.....AAC >> When we get more Republicans in the Senate. > No new laws are needed, the ones we have should work just fine. Ordinarily I'd agree with you but we need to be able to quickly do something very painful to the Sanctuary City mayors, police chiefs, and other elected and appointed officials who are publically attacking America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadicalModerate Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: > Ordinarily I'd agree with you but we need to be able to quickly do something > very painful to the Sanctuary City mayors, police chiefs, and other elected > and appointed officials who are publically attacking America. I think conspiracy indictments would be painful enough. A good start would be when a mayor declares a city to be a sanctuary for illegal aliens, a BICE strike team comes to town. However the root cause is the Executive Branch is failing in its duty to uphold the law. -- The published From: address is a trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AnAmericanCitizen Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:51:02 +0000 (UTC), radicalmoderate@attnn.com (RadicalModerate) wrote: >However the root cause is the Executive Branch is failing in its duty to >uphold the law. Yes and I don't see anybody who stands a chance of being elected in 2008 being any different.....unfortunately.....AAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AnAmericanCitizen Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:32:39 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote: >"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... >> When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting >> illegal >> alien gang members?.....AAC > >When we get more Republicans in the Senate. ....yes, and in the House too.....AAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Whites Right Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:nlssa3hqkae0tmilpe4lqqupo8n4qofmo6@4ax.com... On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:32:39 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote: >"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... >> When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting >> illegal >> alien gang members?.....AAC > >When we get more Republicans in the Senate. ...yes, and in the House too.....AAC Just what we need , another Bush. I say we elect a chimp to office and let him pass laws by throwing shit at bills on a wall. This would give us a better chance of getting something done right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 "RadicalModerate" <radicalmoderate@attnn.com> wrote in message news:f8livm$29e$1@reader2.panix.com... > In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: >> Ordinarily I'd agree with you but we need to be able to quickly do >> something >> very painful to the Sanctuary City mayors, police chiefs, and other >> elected >> and appointed officials who are publically attacking America. > I think conspiracy indictments would be painful enough. > A good start would be when a mayor declares a city to be a sanctuary for > illegal aliens, a BICE strike team comes to town. Works for me... It'll only take one Mayor doing the Perp Walk in cuffs to start changing things. > However the root cause is the Executive Branch is failing in its duty to > uphold the law. Sure, can't argue that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest strabo Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Patriot Games wrote: > "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... >> When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and >> deporting illegal >> alien gang members?.....AAC > > When we get more Republicans in the Senate. > Certain Republicans like John Warner support the illegal alien invasion. Quietly of course. The abdication of constitutional obligations to protect the borders is a bi-partisan effort. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 "strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message news:1186083763_7475@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > Patriot Games wrote: >> "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... >>> When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and >>> deporting illegal >>> alien gang members?.....AAC >> When we get more Republicans in the Senate. > Certain Republicans like John Warner support the illegal > alien invasion. Quietly of course. And we need to get rid of them. > The abdication of constitutional obligations to protect > the borders is a bi-partisan effort. Bi-partisan but far more on the Dem side.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadicalModerate Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: > Bi-partisan but far more on the Dem side.... Indeed there are more D's than R's in the Open Border Lobby. However we have a globalist disguised at a Republican as the entity which has the authority to put a crimp into illegal entry into the USA but to date has only done "feel good" things which are a day late and a dollar short. Things like bollard vehicle barriers without concrete/rebar filling for example. 10 minutes with a cutting torch and they're history. Not to mention allowing the prosecution of law enforcement officers who are actually doing their jobs. -- The published From: address is a trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wantthis Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 On Jul 29, 4:18 pm, "Whites Right" <whitesri...@usa.com> wrote: > "AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmne...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:f27qa3docn148lliar66ml0d63ruvjf7ko@4ax.com... > > When is congress going to pass specific laws for rounding up and deporting illegal > alien gang members?.....AAC > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Governor Swill Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:20:06 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote: >> The abdication of constitutional obligations to protect >> the borders is a bi-partisan effort. > >Bi-partisan but far more on the Dem side.... It wouldn't be an issue if anglos had been willing to assimilate this immigrant population as quickly as possible and the INS had more appropriate legal immigration standards. Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Governor Swill Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 14:22:12 +0000 (UTC), radicalmoderate@attnn.com (RadicalModerate) wrote: >In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: > >> Bi-partisan but far more on the Dem side.... >Indeed there are more D's than R's in the Open Border Lobby. > >However we have a globalist disguised at a Republican as the entity which >has the authority to put a crimp into illegal entry into the USA but >to date has only done "feel good" things which are a day late and a dollar >short. And who gave us ample warning of that tendency while Governor of Texas and also in speech during his campaign for President. But the west still votes for him. Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 "RadicalModerate" <radicalmoderate@attnn.com> wrote in message news:f8vdmj$qh4$1@reader2.panix.com... > In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: >> Bi-partisan but far more on the Dem side.... > Indeed there are more D's than R's in the Open Border Lobby. > However we have a globalist disguised at a Republican as the entity which > has the authority to put a crimp into illegal entry into the USA but > to date has only done "feel good" things which are a day late and a dollar > short. No argument there. > Things like bollard vehicle barriers without concrete/rebar filling > for example. 10 minutes with a cutting torch and they're history. > Not to mention allowing the prosecution of law enforcement officers > who are actually doing their jobs. Bush had no control over their prosecution or conviction or sentencing. He also has no control over their appeal. Congress can act now (or not) but Bush can't do hardly anything WHILE other legal maneuvers are in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadicalModerate Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: > Bush had no control over their prosecution or conviction or sentencing. He > also has no control over their appeal. Congress can act now (or not) but > Bush can't do hardly anything WHILE other legal maneuvers are in play. Bush could have ordered via the Attorney General that the prosecution of Compean and Ramos be dropped; he could have fired Johnny Sutton; he could grant clemency to Compean and Ramos to get them out of prison while their appeals work their way thru the courts; he could grant a pardon to the Texas deputy sheriff who as a result of a civil rights conviction went to prison and has lost the ability to work in law enforcement. -- The published From: address is a trap. Take my first initial and last name and look at the origin of this post. if you really want to send me email. Or request a private reply in the group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Governor Swill Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:28:21 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote: >> Things like bollard vehicle barriers without concrete/rebar filling >> for example. 10 minutes with a cutting torch and they're history. >> Not to mention allowing the prosecution of law enforcement officers >> who are actually doing their jobs. > >Bush had no control over their prosecution or conviction or sentencing. He >also has no control over their appeal. Congress can act now (or not) but >Bush can't do hardly anything WHILE other legal maneuvers are in play. Clinton's Justice Dept prosecuted thousands of employers of illegals. Bush doesn't prosecute any. Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 "RadicalModerate" <radicalmoderate@attnn.com> wrote in message news:f902sg$bvu$2@reader2.panix.com... > In alt.politics.immigration Patriot Games <Patriot@america.com> wrote: >> Bush had no control over their prosecution or conviction or sentencing. >> He >> also has no control over their appeal. Congress can act now (or not) but >> Bush can't do hardly anything WHILE other legal maneuvers are in play. > Bush could have ordered via the Attorney General that the prosecution of > Compean and Ramos be dropped; He can't do that. > he could have fired Johnny Sutton; Can't do that either. > he could > grant clemency to Compean and Ramos to get them out of prison while their > appeals work their way thru the courts; He COULD do that. But somebody has to request it. > he could grant a pardon to the > Texas deputy sheriff who as a result of a civil rights conviction went to > prison and has lost the ability to work in law enforcement. Don't know anything about that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ap68b3di6ajpu1arcmbq2dqicbdonu648e@4ax.com... > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:28:21 -0400, "Patriot Games" > <Patriot@America.com> wrote: >>> Things like bollard vehicle barriers without concrete/rebar filling >>> for example. 10 minutes with a cutting torch and they're history. >>> Not to mention allowing the prosecution of law enforcement officers >>> who are actually doing their jobs. >>Bush had no control over their prosecution or conviction or sentencing. >>He >>also has no control over their appeal. Congress can act now (or not) but >>Bush can't do hardly anything WHILE other legal maneuvers are in play. > Clinton's Justice Dept prosecuted thousands of employers of illegals. > Bush doesn't prosecute any. They just now seem to be ramping up on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.