100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...

[Alex]

Offering a bribe should be fine, for if it is rejected then there was no negative impact. Giving a bribe and taking a bribe are different.

Yelling fire in a crowded nightclub should be legal. Contributing to 200 people stampeding and thus killing two people should probably open you up to certain criminal consequences and definitely a lot of civil ones. Have you committed a crime if you should "Fire" in a crowded nightclub and nobody reacts? I don't think so.


Attempting to shape the verdict of a juror (purely through speech) outside of the appropriate channels is a situation in which I think content-specific prohibitions on speech are apparopriate. But attempting to engage in such speech should not necessarily be illegal (writing a letter to a juror but accidentally addressing it to the wrong person, for example, should have no penatly).

Pretty absolutist. Essentially, there are situations where speech can reasonably result in actions or behaviors that should be controlled but the speech itself should not, ipso facto, be illegal.

[BarTopDancer]

So, I'm not sure if this was brought up here, or if it is the proper thread for it but...

I've seen a few articles putting a slant on this that Mexico is invading the USofA. They cast the illegal aliens as the insurgents and Fox as the leader.

And I'm not so sure I disagree with this view.

Why are we giving people [from any country]* who are here illegally the same rights as those who are here legally? Why should they be allowed to vote? What about the huge drain that they put on our health care and social services system?

I suppose it goes back to making sure every other country is taken care of while we have homeless and hungry families out on the street and thousands of others one paycheck away from being on the street. But why should we help them? Let's help all those who are here illegally first while citizens go hungry and homeless!

Now before I'm painted as a cold hearted bitch who wants to see the economy fail as a result of no-one around to do the hard labor for pittance wages I'll say this... I'm all for work visas. And I'm for getting families and people who have been working hard and are not relying on our social services to support them established here legally. But all those who are draining our social services? Support yourself or get out. We have too many of our own citizens who need help and you're just draining it.

*which brings up another point. If illegal aliens are given the right to vote, will it just be illegal aliens from Mexico? Or those from Cuba, Korea, China, Vietnam and all the other countries people are here from as well. Same with Work Visas. Just those from Mexico or those from other countries.

Would we be reacting this way if a bunch of kids from Korea took down the American flag and raised their flag? Replace anything Mexican with a different country. What would we be doing then? If all the Vietnamese people spoke up maybe we'd have to teach classes in Vietnamese and our bi-lingual labels would be English/Vietnamese and not English/Spanish. (Yes, I realize in areas this is the case, I'm just making a hypothetical situation).

[Nephythys]

Not a word on this today? I'm surprised.

Pictures worth a 1000 words....or more

The gov't has failed....abysmally. But hey, the democrats see votes!! Who cares if they're illegal!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

But hey, the democrats see votes!! Who cares if they're illegal!

What on that flyer indicates illegal votes? Legal immigrants from Mexico (who form a VERY large and VERY legal voting contingent) play a huge role in this issue. Seems like a logical demographic to woo.

If the point of posting that photo was to say that Democrats will benefit from a turnout of people who support less severe handling of illegal immigrants...well, duh. That's hardly news and I don't need to see a photgraph in the internet to convince me of that. If the point was that "the democrats" support illegal voting practices, then yes, I'd have to see some official party support to believe that, 'cause without that all you have is someone with a few buck and access to a print shop who can, by vague inference, be seen to be encouraging illegal voting. Not exactly the same things as "the democracts".

Or, to paraphrase my own post from another thread...It's on a message board?! It must be true!

[Gemini Cricket]

Huge demonstration planned for Boston Common today. I'm thinking of leaving work early to miss all the hullabaloo.

[scaeagles]

Ah, Nephy....I gotta disagree with your partisan spin on that one. The majority of republican politicans see the same thing, and both parties are trying to figure out ways to appease this decent sized voting block while not alienating their base.

There are exceptions to this, of course. JD Hayworth of AZ, Tom Tancredo (sp?) of Colorado, some others that aren't as outspoken.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Ah, Nephy....I gotta disagree with your partisan spin on that one. The majority of republican politicans see the same thing, and both parties are trying to figure out ways to appease this decent sized voting block while not alienating their base.

There are exceptions to this, of course. JD Hayworth of AZ, Tom Tancredo (sp?) of Colorado, some others that aren't as outspoken.

Let me clarify- I'm at work and posted that last bit quickly. I agree with you- but it WAS a Dem flyer in the post-

I said our GOV'T has failed- BOTH sides see votes, both sides see their actions as either good or bad towards keeping or gaining majority status.

The whole thing ticks me off- because the bottom line is that in order to win votes, they sell out LEGAL citizens by refusing to enforce our laws- and the illegals KNOW IT!

(On Edit- I am at a point of being really unhappy with Pols in general- though no one would be surprised that I dislike Dems more Though it would not take much for the spineless Repubs to catch up with them )

[Alex]

I'm not advocating this but I'm wondering what would happen to the various marches if INS (or whatever they're called now) let it be known that they'd have enforcement officers at these events since they had reason to believe that people illegally in the country would be present?

What authorities do they have to ask for ID and restrain? Back in college I had reason to commute every weekend between Bellingham, WA, and Seattle on Greyhound. Every Sunday night before the bus left Bellingham (which is about 30-40 miles south of the Canadian border) and INS agent would board and ask random people for ID. This was a bus that never left the country, just did this shuttle run.

Could INS show up and just start asking random people for some proof of legality?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Could INS show up and just start asking random people for some proof of legality?

I doubt it. There is no requirement in this country that I have any identification on me while walking down the street. Walking down the street or participating in a rally (assuming you are nonviolent) does not give probable cause for a government agency to stop anyone.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I doubt it. There is no requirement in this country that I have any identification on me while walking down the street. Walking down the street or participating in a rally (assuming you are nonviolent) does not give probable cause for a government agency to stop anyone.

Then why were they able to do it on the bus? I don't know what would have happened if you didn't have ID as everybody always did.