Dream Turns Nightmare: Milwaukee Police Officer to Be Deported

[Artegal 1]

You know you have to consider StevenJinky Mr.FancyPants bias--he is an anarchist-isolationist. He is against the Multi-nationals, UN, IMF, World Bank, and any trade treaty--but on the other hand he seems bent on allowing free and open immigration. I guess he is for unorganized trade and travel as opposed to legalized or controlled methods. However as much as it pains me to do so, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE this case is the best case for his example--I have to aggree with StevenJinky (who once labelled me a tool, as he likes to give other labels to people as well apparently) that it is troubling that in this country the prevailing general content that we have in the post-9/11 era is to just give police (law enforcement, justice, etc) wide descretion. I would say so far this content falls short of making us all facists, however, it is the general trend of such leanings that should be more alarming than the scant evidence and observations we have with global warming that seem to alarm so many of us. And this case does not support StevenJinky's ideas--because if we were a facists state--wouldn't we overlook this case of the illegal law-breaking immigrant since he is a police officer--it would seem a true facists state would ignore this fact and let the criminal police officer stay in power.

Bring a different case StevenJinky FancyPants, you can do better.

[vbtbmrt 2]

well i live just north of milwaukee and was so out raged by this guys actions this does leave the door open for people to have there cases thrown out. also his brother also works for the same police force and was fired for being a liar also well the milwaukee police force is getting a new police cheif and his brother was reinstated couple weeks ago before new cheif takes over for me i would of said no way onces a liar always a liar and oh ya his plane didnt leave on sat like it was suppose to due to the weather

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know you have to consider StevenJinky Mr.FancyPants bias--he is an anarchist-isolationist. He is against the Multi-nationals, UN, IMF, World Bank, and any trade treaty--but on the other hand he seems bent on allowing free and open immigration. I guess he is for unorganized trade and travel as opposed to legalized or controlled methods. However as much as it pains me to do so, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE this case is the best case for his example--I have to aggree with StevenJinky (who once labelled me a tool, as he likes to give other labels to people as well apparently) that it is troubling that in this country the prevailing general content that we have in the post-9/11 era is to just give police (law enforcement, justice, etc) wide descretion. I would say so far this content falls short of making us all facists, however, it is the general trend of such leanings that should be more alarming than the scant evidence and observations we have with global warming that seem to alarm so many of us. And this case does not support StevenJinky's ideas--because if we were a facists state--wouldn't we overlook this case of the illegal law-breaking immigrant since he is a police officer--it would seem a true facists state would ignore this fact and let the criminal police officer stay in power.

Bring a different case StevenJinky FancyPants, you can do better.

Talk about holding a grudge, Steve. If I had a dollar for every label someone's pinned on me, I could buy you that new drill set you been wanting for Christmas.

I realize that this thread is long on the tooth and you probably skimmed over what I said, but my comment was NOT that we have a fascist state or am I even talking about the application of our immigration laws themselves, but the general viewpoint that gets expressed here over and over again, whenever there is a story, like this one, is that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach. That is a fascist view of law. I don't know what more appropriate label to use for such a view about law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

Alright, so to you, Abe was a non-fascist with a fascist view of law. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I don't disagree with the definition presented earlier under #12. I do, however, disagree that there's any such tendency dominating the US justice system. Most certainly not when it comes to the illegal crowd. They are, one by one, afforded due process when apprehended and before they are removed. That's how a nation that is founded on the rule of law works. That's not how a fascist system works. Not even close.

Reinhard...as I stated earlier, I'm talking about the attitude towards the application of our immigration laws - the belief that such application (enforcement and punishment) are above reproach. If you don't believe that then great, I'm relieved. However, it seems to me that anytime a story like this gets posted here, no matter the circumstances, some of you here rejoice in the punishment of the individual as if justice was served. If the core reason of that attitude is simply because the individual had not followed, broken, or acted outside of our current laws, then that is a fascist view of law.

I'll demonstrate by asking you this - under what circumstances would you find it excusable that an immigrant acted outside of our immigration laws?

Circumstances have been considered for each and every deported alien. It's part of the judicial process in this great country of ours. You know that.

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Go back and read my statements. I never called someone a fascist. I said a particular view of law as reigning supreme is a fascist view. Are you arguing that it isn't? If it isn't, then please tell me what is a fascist view of laws to enlighten me.

I see. A person can hold a fascist view but not actually be a fascist. Is that essence of your statement?

Why not? Do you think people are ideologues incapable of having a mixture of political opinions and views?

Anyhow, I think you're deliberately steering this into something different. Back to the question, what do you consider is a fascist view of law, generally speaking?

Alright, so to you, Abe was a non-fascist with a fascist view of law. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, I don't disagree with the definition presented earlier under #12. I do, however, disagree that there's any such tendency dominating the US justice system. Most certainly not when it comes to the illegal crowd. They are, one by one, afforded due process when apprehended and before they are removed. That's how a nation that is founded on the rule of law works. That's not how a fascist system works. Not even close.

Reinhard...as I stated earlier, I'm talking about the attitude towards the application of our immigration laws - the belief that such application (enforcement and punishment) are above reproach. If you don't believe that then great, I'm relieved. However, it seems to me that anytime a story like this gets posted here, no matter the circumstances, some of you here rejoice in the punishment of the individual as if justice was served. If the core reason of that attitude is simply because the individual had not followed, broken, or acted outside of our current laws, then that is a fascist view of law.

I'll demonstrate by asking you this - under what circumstances would you find it excusable that an immigrant acted outside of our immigration laws?

Circumstances have been considered for each and every deported alien. It's part of the judicial process in this great country of ours. You know that.

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

Excellent point Reinhard.

Plus, the "non-separation of families" is also absolute shaganappi--as shown by the fact that many LEGAL temp-workers (including those from countries such as India, which DO NOT allow true dual-citizenship, and where much paperwork is required) have returned to home countries with their US-born children.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

It's not black-and-white. There's a judicial process in place that covers all shades of gray.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

You can also claim that you don't believe in gravity--but if you do, I'd like to see you take a walk between two buildings, at 10^th-floor level, WITHOUT any aids or supports such as ropes, choppers, ...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

It's not black-and-white. There's a judicial process in place that covers all shades of gray.

Oye...Reinhard...seriously try to follow what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ATTITUDE that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach. That attitude is a fascist viewpoint of law.

I used the example of my neighbor growing marijuana in his house. The current law, IMO, is ridiculous, but I don't think it is fascist or even the enforcement of that law as fascist. If that neighbor is sentenced to 10 years prison, and my other neighbor says, "Good! That ba$tard deserved it!" ....and he consistently felt that way across all circumstances of laws being broken - that the individual gets what they deserve ...that justice is served....I'd say that's a fascist view of law.

Please tell me you get what I'm talking about?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GabachaYucateca 0]

Yikes, this conversation seems to have gone awry!

Would anyone (on either side of the debate) like to talk about a guest worker program? Workers become visitors providing a service, which makes everyone happy...anti-illegals because they don't drain the system (although I'm not entirely convinced of their net drain ) and the migrants, because many that I know really would rather live in their sending country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

It's not black-and-white. There's a judicial process in place that covers all shades of gray.

Oye...Reinhard...seriously try to follow what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ATTITUDE that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach. That attitude is a fascist viewpoint of law.

Try to understand that what people are saying, Steve. Nobody wants an immigration GESTAPO running across the US. What people do want is the government enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books through our enforcement and judicial institutions. Everyone knows that mitigating factors will be considered in each case. This is what you simply refuse to see.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Actually, Reinhard: the laws on the books do need scrapping--but not before formulating some new ones more in tune with post-WW2 situations.

A model which I would advocate is one based on Canada's "points" system, with the modification that only English be allowed as official language.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yikes, this conversation seems to have gone awry!

Would anyone (on either side of the debate) like to talk about a guest worker program? Workers become visitors providing a service, which makes everyone happy...anti-illegals because they don't drain the system (although I'm not entirely convinced of their net drain ) and the migrants, because many that I know really would rather live in their sending country.

I agree. That's what I've been saying all along. Make it easy for those who wish to work here and stay out of trouble.

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

It's not black-and-white. There's a judicial process in place that covers all shades of gray.

Oye...Reinhard...seriously try to follow what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ATTITUDE that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach. That attitude is a fascist viewpoint of law.

Try to understand that what people are saying, Steve. Nobody wants an immigration GESTAPO running across the US. What people do want is the government enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books through our enforcement and judicial institutions. Everyone knows that mitigating factors will be considered in each case. This is what you simply refuse to see.

In the court of public opinion (or at least the one here on VJ)...if that were only the case.

[natty bumppo 297]

And spare me that bullshite question. You don't think it's bullshite? Let me demonstrate: Under what circumstances would you find it excusable that I move into your home w/o asking your permission?

It's only a BS question if you look at the application of our immigration laws in black and white, or absolutes, which proves what I'm talking about.

It's not black-and-white. There's a judicial process in place that covers all shades of gray.

Oye...Reinhard...seriously try to follow what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ATTITUDE that the application of our immigration laws are above reproach. That attitude is a fascist viewpoint of law.

Try to understand that what people are saying, Steve. Nobody wants an immigration GESTAPO running across the US. What people do want is the government enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books through our enforcement and judicial institutions. Everyone knows that mitigating factors will be considered in each case. This is what you simply refuse to see.

In the court of public opinion (or at least the one here on VJ)...if that were only the case.

Cases are handled in a court of law ... not public opinion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Would anyone (on either side of the debate) like to talk about a guest worker program? Workers become visitors providing a service, which makes everyone happy...anti-illegals because they don't drain the system (although I'm not entirely convinced of their net drain ) and the migrants, because many that I know really would rather live in their sending country.

We have guest worker programs. Lots of them. If we need more guest workers, then there's a process by which the number of available visa can be increased. But trust me, there'll always be more wanting one then there will be visa available.

And as for the net drain, you're just not entirely convinced because you don't want to be. There isn't a single reputable source out there that disputes that illegal migration is a net cost fiscally to the US.