Hey, ACLU! SUCK IT!

[The Question]

Take the first amendment test. You misread it as being "A or B or C," when the test is "A and B and C." This produces major problems for your argument that the ACLU is violating the law.

The current court precedent (which falls short of what some free speech advocates say in interpreting the first amendment literally) is that speech, to be restricted, must clearly (a) be advocacy of law breaking or violence, (b) be intended to produce imminent lawless action and (c) also likely to produce imminent lawless action.

Amnesty proposals clearly (a) promise impunity for those who have broken the law, (b) require foreknowledge of the results of the 1986 amnesty, which increased the level of illegal immigration, i.e. increased lawless action. Since those proposing amnesty are responsible for knowing the results of the previous amnesty, they are criminally negligent in the very least in proposing a new one, and by so doing demonstrate either Intent under (b) or negligence, and (as in the 1986 amnesty) (c) amnesty discussion beginning with Bush in 2001 has increased the rate at which the crime is committed.

Look, this obviously needs to be dumbed down for you.

Telling people that they might not be punished if they commit a crime encourages commission of that crime; (b) the preceding point is so patently obvious that intention can be assumed by the very act iself, especially because (c) the same discussion already had the effect of increasing the rate at which this particular crime is being committed.

 

[TJHairball]

Amnesty proposals clearly (a) promise impunity for those who have broken the law,

But does it advocate breaking the law? That is, do amnesty proposals say "We recommend you break the law?"

Not really. It encourages it indirectly, yes, but most amnesty proposals don't actually advocate illegal border crossings.

(b) require foreknowledge of the results of the 1986 amnesty, which increased the level of illegal immigration, i.e. increased lawless action. Since those proposing amnesty are responsible for knowing the results of the previous amnesty, they are criminally negligent in the very least in proposing a new one, and by so doing demonstrate either Intent under (b) or negligence, and (as in the 1986 amnesty)

(b) is the only part of the three part test that you are likely to be able to apply as a matter of factual case... unfortunately, it's very difficult to demonstrate in the case of a collective political body like Congress. The particular promises and suggestions of the president are your best bet for demonstrating that (b) applies. He's a discrete individual who has (therefore) some determinate motivations, which might even be shaken out of him in testimony eventually.

(c) amnesty discussion beginning with Bush in 2001 has increased the rate at which the crime is committed.

Here's the thing you're really not getting about (c): Imminence. Close at hand, direct, immediate. Clear causality needs to be there along with probable immediate and direct results. (Improbable results that nevertheless occur as a result don't qualify, nor do probable results without clear causality, or non-imminent - i.e., indirect and distanced - results, regardless of their probability or causality.)

The speech in question, to be regulated, must be imminently likely to produce this violent/illegal action. It's a strong test, with good reason - we're very fond of our ability to say whatever we like, particularly regarding political discourse. That way lies tyranny.

That's not to say that what you say can't land you in jail, but that's mostly because of it being used as evidence (e.g., mentioning a heroin deal gone bad on your livejournal) but the simple fact of the matter is that political speech is among the most protected forms of speech, and you need a truly compelling case in order to make it illegal.

 

[The Question]

But does it advocate breaking the law? That is, do amnesty proposals say "We recommend you break the law?"

No, they say, "We will not punish you for breaking the law" which equates to the same thing.

Not really. It encourages it indirectly, yes, but most amnesty proposals don't actually advocate illegal border crossings.[/qoute]

They remove the deterrent from breaking the law, which is an indirect advocation.

(b) is the only part of the three part test that you are likely to be able to apply as a matter of factual case... unfortunately, it's very difficult to demonstrate in the case of a collective political body like Congress.

Wrong. (A) is where they propose amnesty, essentially saying, "If you break the law, there is a chance you will not be punished for it." (C) is a matter of historical, statistical fact.

The particular promises and suggestions of the president are your best bet for demonstrating that (b) applies. He's a discrete individual who has (therefore) some determinate motivations, which might even be shaken out of him in testimony eventually.

And Congress demonstrates intent through their actions.

Here's the thing you're really not getting about (c): Imminence. Close at hand, direct, immediate. Clear causality needs to be there along with probable immediate and direct results. (Improbable results that nevertheless occur as a result don't qualify, nor do probable results without clear causality, or non-imminent - i.e., indirect and distanced - results, regardless of their probability or causality.)

The 1986 amnesty established a precedent for imminence with its resultant dramatic increase in illegal immigration, and that same result has been evident since Bush promised amnesty in 2001. (C) has been effected on this subject, and you demonstrate yet again your abject stupidity in refusing to acknowledge that point.

The speech in question, to be regulated, must be imminently likely to produce this violent/illegal action.

And based on 1986 pre- and post-amnesty illegal immigration increases, and post 2001 Bush amnesty promise increases, imminence is proven.

It's a strong test, with good reason - we're very fond of our ability to say whatever we like, particularly regarding political discourse. That way lies tyranny.

And the other way lies dissolution, which is what Bush and Congress are steering us toward when they increase illegal immigration by promises of amnesty.

...but the simple fact of the matter is that political speech is among the most protected forms of speech, and you need a truly compelling case in order to make it illegal.

And a compelling case has been put right here in front of you, just as it's been sitting right in front of all Americans since 1986, and you stoutly refuse to look past your politically correct dogma to acknowledge it.

 

[The Question]

Am I really the only one who sees how incredibly stupid TJHairball is being on this?

 

[TJHairball]

No, they say, "We will not punish you for breaking the law" which equates to the same thing.

So if I said I wouldn't punish you for jumping off a bridge, you'd do it?

Of course not, and it's not the same thing as telling you to go jump a bridge. Only in an indirect fashion, adding in additional influences and placing the amnesty as one link in a long network of causal chains, can you say it advocates illegal immigration.

They remove the deterrent from breaking the law, which is an indirect advocation.

You need the advocacy in question to be fairly direct. In case you should think that I've mis-stated the test, here it is in the justices' words:

"decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

See here for discussion of the pivotal case establishing this test. As I've mentioned, this is a very strong test indeed by precedent, shielding the KKK as well as the ACLU.

Give it up, TQ. Your interpretation of USC 1324-1326 doesn't hold water in a legal system that recognizes the First Amendment taking priority over ordinary statutes... or that allows the freedom of political discourse. Take a step back and think about what your suggestion would mean: Prosecuting Congress for passing bills that they are well within their constitutional rights to pass. Prosecuting anyone who expresses opposition to your political views. Prosecuting anyone who votes for someone running on a campaign including as a platform item something opposed to your political views. Etc.

 

[The Question]

So if I said I wouldn't punish you for jumping off a bridge, you'd do it?

False analogy. If I said you could rob a bank and not be punished for it or resisted in any way, would you not do it?

Only in an indirect fashion, adding in additional influences and placing the amnesty as one link in a long network of causal chains, can you say it advocates illegal immigration.

And since that causal chain is in place, and since the causality has been established in fact, then the incitement is not only likely, but proven.

You need the advocacy in question to be fairly direct.

Promising immunity from prosecution is as direct an incentive to commit the crime under discussion as any incentive needs to be, as has already been proven in statistical fact.

We're not dealing with a hypothetical here, we're dealing with a known and proven causal relationship.

"decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

And amnesty, and discussion of amnesty on the part of those who can effect same, does incite and produce imminent lawless action. This is not speculation, it is proven statistical fact.

See here for discussion of the pivotal case establishing this test. As I've mentioned, this is a very strong test indeed by precedent, shielding the KKK as well as the ACLU.

Seen it, and precedent of imminence and likelihood establishes intent. If you know that a specific speech will produce imminent lawbreaking, and then engage in that speech, that can be concluded to demonstrate intent.

Example: If I suppose that telling you your wife is cheating on you might cause you to kill your wife, and then tell you same, that might not be prosecutable. However, if it is known and proven that telling a man his wife is cheating on him will cause him to kill his wife, for me to engage in that speech under those circumstances is itself a demonstration of intent, because I have reason to know that my speech will result in a crime.

The 1986 amnesty is known and statistically proven to have resulted in an increase in criminal border violation. Therefore, to commit the same imminent cause that has been proven to have resulted in crime in the past demonstrates intent to produce the same crime now.

Take a step back and think about what your suggestion would mean: Prosecuting Congress for passing bills that they are well within their constitutional rights to pass.

Strawman. I have never suggested Congress should be prosecuted for legislating.

Prosecuting anyone who expresses opposition to your political views. Prosecuting anyone who votes for someone running on a campaign including as a platform item something opposed to your political views. Etc.

I have never even remotely suggested those two concepts. You know, it's said that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Do yourself a favor -- return to us our cause for doubt.

 

[The Question]

In case you feel it worthwhile to further humiliate yourself, you might next address this question:

Do you admit to supporting the double-standard which postulates that the U.S. and American citizens should allow Mexican citizens more latitude in violating our border laws than Mexico will allow for non-Mexican foreign nationals?

If you don't support that double-standard, which do you prefer?

1. Mexico relax its own border enforcement policies, or

2. The U.S. strengthens and strictly enforces its border policies.

If Choice 2., can the U.S. implement stricter border enforcement without such enforcement being circumvented by the ACLU's "it's only a crime if you get caught" legal loophole?

And let me tempt you with one further question -- if, that is, you choose not to heed my advice and cease and desist your masochistic pursuit of an argument in which you are losing, badly -- which do you prefer: that the rights of Americans to equality of opportunity be defended, or that the pursuit of illegal seizure of U.S. territory by Mexico and the complicity of greedy business enterprises and the political avarice of corrupt or apathetic politicians be defended?

 

[The Question]

Oh, one last note before you undoubtedly commit social suicide here yet again:

Of course not. They're pursuing what they believe to be a militaristic hate group just waiting for the opportunity to oppress the civil liberties of incoming migrant workers.

Referring to people who break the law by crossing our border as "migrant workers" or "immigrants" is like referring to car thieves as "motorists."

 

[TJHairball]

False analogy. If I said you could rob a bank and not be punished for it or resisted in any way, would you not do it?

Of course I wouldn't. Not without additional compelling reasons, such as your threatening to shoot me unless I robbed the bank.

Do you really go through life thinking everybody needs only the opportunity to get away with it to become a criminal?

And since that causal chain is in place, and since the causality has been established in fact, then the incitement is not only likely, but proven.

Read what I said again... "causal network."

Take any immigrant. Let's call him Jose. Did Jose come into this country because some particular politician (let's call him George) mentioned the possibility of amnesty? Would he have come anyway? Would he have not come if George hadn't spoken up to talk about amnesty?

You can't answer that question yes or no with anything resembling certainty. At most you can ascribe a vague causal link and a relatively weak statistical correlation.

Promising immunity from prosecution is as direct an incentive to commit the crime under discussion as any incentive needs to be, as has already been proven in statistical fact.

We're not dealing with a hypothetical here, we're dealing with a known and proven causal relationship.

We're working with a web of indirect influence.

Sure, it's there. But it's not imminent or direct causality.

And amnesty, and discussion of amnesty on the part of those who can effect same, does incite and produce imminent lawless action. This is not speculation, it is proven statistical fact.

Note here where you claim (a) passing legislation to give amnesty to current illegals and (b) discussion of amnesty as illegal.

Strawman. I have never suggested Congress should be prosecuted for legislating.

Then what the devil are you talking about in what I quoted above?

Seen it, and precedent of imminence and likelihood establishes intent. If you know that a specific speech will produce imminent lawbreaking, and then engage in that speech, that can be concluded to demonstrate intent.

Example: If I suppose that telling you your wife is cheating on you might cause you to kill your wife, and then tell you same, that might not be prosecutable. However, if it is known and proven that telling a man his wife is cheating on him will cause him to kill his wife, for me to engage in that speech under those circumstances is itself a demonstration of intent, because I have reason to know that my speech will result in a crime.

Under the circumstances that you believe such...

...which we may note is not necessarily the case here.

The 1986 amnesty is known and statistically proven to have resulted in an increase in criminal border violation. Therefore, to commit the same imminent cause that has been proven to have resulted in crime in the past demonstrates intent to produce the same crime now.

The 1986 amnesty was a one time event.

And you're trying to separate it out of its context in history.

You're claiming a causal chain; you have a causal network. You need a direct cause.

I have never even remotely suggested those two concepts. You know, it's said that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Do yourself a favor -- return to us our cause for doubt.

TQ, I simply follow your interpretation to its conclusion.

Leaving aside the fact that you've specifically mentioned talking about amnesty as something you feel is illegal per USC 1324-1326, giving the lie to your claims that this doesn't apply to political discourse, the sort of indirect causality of tendency within a network of possible and actual causes and effects lined up in chains leads to the prosecution of - for example - distributing anti-war pamphlets, as has happened under prior, less rigorous tests of First Amendment rights.

Understand, TQ, that the exact same arguments can be applied towards an enormous variety of speech. You're claiming an impossibly broad interpretation of the law in order to try and claim that the ACLU is engaged in criminal activity by providing legal observers to watch the border. And not just the ACLU is criminal, you say...

Every politician who has defended illegal immigration, as well as the ACLU, are guilty of this crime.

Eat your own words, TQ. You're lying about what you've said now... even you must be starting to realize how absurd your claims are.

Reviewing the facts:

• The Minutemen may or may not be engaged in illegal activity. The ACLU has a case outlined and is ready to press it as soon as they can track down evidence willing to testify in court.
• The Minutemen don't need a special use permit.
• The ACLU is - perfectly legally - providing trained observers.
• The Minutemen claim that the ACLU is infringing upon their civil rights by watching the border with them. They are, of course, wrong. There is not a single civil right TQ or I have been able to come up with that the ACLU has stepped upon in watching the public activity of Minutemen.
• The Minutemen - not the ACLU - have been publicizing this conflict widely. The ACLU are not simply being attention whores, as TQ has had the audacity to claim.
• The ACLU spends the vast majority of its time dealing with cases involved in legal issues, and has a great deal else on their plate - contrary again to TQ's rabid claims about the ACLU being obsessed, or solely defending the rights of illegals at the expense of legals.
• The MCDC has dubious finances. Assorted Minuteman groups have ties to known hate groups, and have been documented by investigative reporters in compromising positions (e.g., Minuteman One). The Minutemen are also attempting to get people on the inside of the opposition groups in order to provide them information about how they might be getting in trouble.
• In order to find the ACLU guilty of criminal action, TQ needs to provide an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of the law, which - fully applied and enforced - would jail a significant fraction of PACs, politicians, talking heads, etc etc etc, and essentially constitute systematic oppression of political discourse on immigration.

You've spent most of your time calling the ACLU anti-American. All it's doing is reminding me of some of McCarthy's speeches.

 

[The Question]

Of course I wouldn't. Not without additional compelling reasons, such as your threatening to shoot me unless I robbed the bank.

Or that you really, really needed the money?

Do you really go through life thinking everybody needs only the opportunity to get away with it to become a criminal?

No, I go through life thinking that people with motive, if given opportunity, will commit the crime. A corrupt and incompetent government has produced a mass poverty situation in Mexico, and that imbues unskilled Mexican labor with motive. Public discussion of amnesty on the part of our politicians provides them with the perception of opportunity. Guess what the result was in 1986?

Source:

WASHINGTON (Oct. 12, 2000) — The report on America's illegal immigration crisis by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), released today on Capitol Hill, highlights the profound unintended consequences of illegal-alien amnesties, just as Congress is considering another such amnesty. The report also makes clear, contrary to the conventional wisdom, that legal and illegal immigration are so intimately connected as to be two sides of the same coin. (Download the report at http://wwwa.house.gov/lamarsmith/INSreport.pdf.)

The report represents a genuine effort by the INS to examine this complex problem. The new estimates are the best to date and provide valuable new information for policymakers and the public. Among the findings, and their implications:

Amnesties clearly do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. About 2.7 million people received lawful permanent residence ("green cards") in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the amnesties contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. But these new INS figures show that by the beginning of 1997 those former illegal aliens had been entirely replaced by new illegal aliens, and that the unauthorized population again stood at more than 5 million, just as before the amnesty.

In fact, the new INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly legalized illegals came to the United States to join their family members. The flow of illegals grew dramatically during the years of the amnesty to more than 800,000 a year, before dropping back down to around 500,000 a year.

The 1986 amnesty was a one time event.

And you're trying to separate it out of its context in history.

What context could possibly change the event in so dramatic a way as to alter the very statistical facts preceding and succeeding it?

You're claiming a causal chain; you have a causal network. You need a direct cause.

It's just been demonstrated. You, however, will ignore that, because you're proceeding from dogma.

TQ, I simply follow your interpretation to its conclusion.

You've demonstrated half a dozen times in this thread that you don't even comprehend my interpretation.

Leaving aside the fact that you've specifically mentioned talking about amnesty as something you feel is illegal per USC 1324-1326, giving the lie to your claims that this doesn't apply to political discourse, the sort of indirect causality of tendency within a network of possible and actual causes and effects lined up in chains leads to the prosecution of - for example - distributing anti-war pamphlets, as has happened under prior, less rigorous tests of First Amendment rights.

I never claimed that it doesn't apply to political discourse. I claimed that it applies to political discourse which has been, and can be reasonably expected to be in the future, directly injurious to the public safety, directly contrary to the wishes of the American people, in breach of representatives oaths of office and an incitement to commit crime.

Understand, TQ, that the exact same arguments can be applied towards an enormous variety of speech.

Name one.

You're claiming an impossibly broad interpretation of the law in order to try and claim that the ACLU is engaged in criminal activity by providing legal observers to watch the border.

The ACLU's placement of border observers is the subject of a different claim entirely. The statement I quoted from the ACLU's "Immigration" page is the statement which encourages criminal activity, not their observer placement. My complaint with their observer placement is that the activity is one-sided against American interests in favor of illegals' interests. As I said, you don't even know my position, much less are you able to effectively argue against it.

Eat your own words, TQ. You're lying about what you've said now... even you must be starting to realize how absurd your claims are.

Where did I lie about what I've said?

Reviewing the facts:

• The Minutemen may or may not be engaged in illegal activity. The ACLU has a case outlined and is ready to press it as soon as they can track down evidence willing to testify in court.

Restated for clarity: The Minutemen may or may not be engaged in illegal activity -- the ACLU, however, presupposes their guilt, and is searching for any crime with which to have them charged.

• The Minutemen don't need a special use permit.
• The ACLU is - perfectly legally - providing trained observers.[/quote]
  
  Perfectly legally -- but not equitably.
  
  

  [*]The Minutemen claim that the ACLU is infringing upon their civil rights by watching the border with them. They are, of course, wrong. There is not a single civil right TQ or I have been able to come up with that the ACLU has stepped upon in watching the public activity of Minutemen.
  [*]The Minutemen - not the ACLU - have been publicizing this conflict widely. The ACLU are not simply being attention whores, as TQ has had the audacity to claim.

  
  The Minutemen have yet to drag the ACLU into a legal entanglement that any reasonable individual or entity would know a plaintiff won't win. As previously stated, there are two reasons for the ACLU to bring legal action it knows it can't win -- to create political pressure and to generate public and media focus on itself.
  
  

  [*]The ACLU spends the vast majority of its time dealing with cases involved in legal issues, and has a great deal else on their plate - contrary again to TQ's rabid claims about the ACLU being obsessed, or solely defending the rights of illegals at the expense of legals.

  
  I never said that's the sum total of what they're doing -- I've only pointed out the fact that that's what they're doing.
  
  

  [*]The MCDC has dubious finances.

  
  Irrelevant.
  
  

  Assorted Minuteman groups have ties to known hate groups, and have been documented by investigative reporters in compromising positions (e.g., Minuteman One).

  
  Absent any actual crime, also irrelevant.
  
  

  The Minutemen are also attempting to get people on the inside of the opposition groups in order to provide them information about how they might be getting in trouble.

  
  Also not a crime, therefore also irrelevant.
  
  

  [*]In order to find the ACLU guilty of criminal action, TQ needs to provide an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of the law, which - fully applied and enforced - would jail a significant fraction of PACs, politicians, talking heads, etc etc etc, and essentially constitute systematic oppression of political discourse on immigration.

Again, incorrect.

You've spent most of your time calling the ACLU anti-American. All it's doing is reminding me of some of McCarthy's speeches.

Interestingly enough, some decades after McCarthy's exit from the scene... he was proven correct. And you still haven't answered those questions I asked you.

 

[TJHairball]

Or that you really, really needed the money?

For what?

See, you need to provide additional motivation.

No, I go through life thinking that people with motive, if given opportunity, will commit the crime.

Which is perfectly sound reasoning. The ACLU uses it to justify sending legal observers to watch over the Minuteman groups.

Guess what the result was in 1986?

Gee... 60% increase in immigration in a few years.

Remember the "Why did Jose come here?" test? The probability that Jose would've come here anyway is looking like over 60%.

What context could possibly change the event in so dramatic a way as to alter the very statistical facts preceding and succeeding it?

Historical contexts?

What changed in 1991... oh, yes, we went to war in the Gulf, the Soviet Union collapsed, etc etc etc. Did I mention immigrants are eligible for the draft?

In 1985, a severe earthquake struck Mexico City, causing massive loss of property and life, substantially impacting the Mexican economy.

Sure, it's unlikely that those produced a 60% drop or fall, but we're still talking substantive confounds, and still talking quite indirect causality here through what doesn't qualify as direct advocacy.

It's just been demonstrated. You, however, will ignore that, because you're proceeding from dogma.

The only dogma I'm holding to here is the First Amendment. I've stubbornly refused to discard the current Supreme Court interpretation of it, and it firmly denies your interpretation of USC 1324-1326.

You've demonstrated half a dozen times in this thread that you don't even comprehend my interpretation.

Base falsehood.

I never claimed that it doesn't apply to political discourse. I claimed that it applies to political discourse which has been, and can be reasonably expected to be in the future, directly injurious to the public safety, directly contrary to the wishes of the American people, in breach of representatives oaths of office and an incitement to commit crime.

"I have never claimed that it applies to political discourse."

This statement is contradicted by:

"I claimed it applies to political discourse [which meets certain conditions]."

TQ, WTF, mate? Share the weed next time.

Name one.

Debate in Congress.

The ACLU's placement of border observers is the subject of a different claim entirely. The statement I quoted from the ACLU's "Immigration" page is the statement which encourages criminal activity, not their observer placement. My complaint with their observer placement is that the activity is one-sided against American interests in favor of illegals' interests. As I said, you don't even know my position, much less are you able to effectively argue against it.

So you do not now claim that the ACLU is violating civil rights or laws of the land by placing its legal observers there?

Good.

Where did I lie about what I've said?

See above for another fine example of contradiction within what you've said. "I've never claimed... I claimed."

It's staring you right in the face, TQ.

Restated for clarity: The Minutemen may or may not be engaged in illegal activity -- the ACLU, however, presupposes their guilt, and is searching for any crime with which to have them charged.

Much like the Minutemen presuppose anyone they see in the border region to be there illegally?

Perfectly legally -- but not equitably.

Not equitably? They're watching, TQ. How can they not watch equitably?

The Minutemen have yet to drag the ACLU into a legal entanglement that any reasonable individual or entity would know a plaintiff won't win.

The Minutemen have yet to try to bring the ACLU in court. Period. They know on whose side the balance of legal expertise lies, and they know that there's nothing the ACLU is doing here that they could possibly prosecute for.

As previously stated, there are two reasons for the ACLU to bring legal action it knows it can't win -- to create political pressure and to generate public and media focus on itself.

I contend that the ACLU hasn't been bringing such cases to court in this case.

I further note that there are third and fourth reasons... out of conscience (never let wrongdoing go unopposed) and "for the record" (avoiding charges of complicity later on.)

Your second choice - media attention - is a motivation that clearly in this case applies to the Minutemen, not the ACLU. And anyone who thinks that significant political pressure will come out of a case over requiring a special permit that you "know you will lose" without drawing media attention at the same time is out of it.

I never said that's the sum total of what they're doing -- I've only pointed out the fact that that's what they're doing.

Fair enough. I'll say again that what you're talking about (ZOMG encourage the illegals!) is only an incidental side-effect of the ACLU's rigorous defense of civil liberties in general.

Irrelevant.

Highly relevant.

The whole purpose of this thread is comparing the ACLU and the Minutemen. The MCDC's dubious finances highlight just how far below the ACLU they fall in terms of moral and procedural fiber.

Absent any actual crime, also irrelevant.

...from what I understand, the documentary indicates what the letter shows to be actual crime.

However, I don't believe the documentary itself qualifies as the sort of evidence that can be introduced in court. Unsworn testimony, hearsay, etc etc.

Also not a crime, therefore also irrelevant.

Relevant again in comparing the character of the two organizations... and relevant also in establishing that the Minutemen feel they have something to hide.

Again, incorrect.

I ask you then: How does your interpretation of the law show the ACLU's website to be illegal, but not any of that list?

Interestingly enough, some decades after McCarthy's exit from the scene... he was proven correct.

Some of the people accused by McCarthy have since proven to be guilty.

This does not excuse his methods, nor his egregious errors (e.g., claiming that the ACLU was listed as a subversive organization, when in fact the ACLU was working closely with the FBI in this era; e.g., deciding to take on the whole of the Army as chock-full of commies), nor the numerous established innocents who did no spying and were ruined during the great red scare of the 1950s (J. Robert Oppenheimer comes to mind; as a nation, the US owed few greater debts to any individual, and yet he lost his career, his health, and died early as a result of the big red scare).

He attacked the ACLU primarily for opposing his methods.

And you still haven't answered those questions I asked you.

What, that extra scattershot BS? Resolve the outstanding egregious contradiction in your own words first.

 

[The Question]

For what?

See, you need to provide additional motivation.

What additional motivation do you need? You need the money, and you can take it without resistance or the possibility of punishment. You are seriously pressing the ignorance act to new extremes.

Which is perfectly sound reasoning. The ACLU uses it to justify sending legal observers to watch over the Minuteman groups.

Concession accepted, then.

Gee... 60% increase in immigration in a few years.

In direct result of amnesty, lest anyone forget.

Remember the "Why did Jose come here?" test? The probability that Jose would've come here anyway is looking like over 60%.

You're confusing (perhaps deliberately) two different concepts:

1. Odds that a crime would be committed, and
2. An increase in the commission of the crime.

What the INS document describes is a 60% increase in the rate at which the crime was committed.

Historical contexts?

What changed in 1991... oh, yes, we went to war in the Gulf, the Soviet Union collapsed, etc etc etc. Did I mention immigrants are eligible for the draft?

Then unless you can demonstrate a 60% increase in the number of illegals joining the military during the time period to which the quoted INS document applies and subtract from that the number of illegals who did not join, those events remain irrelevant to the increase in crime.

In 1985, a severe earthquake struck Mexico City, causing massive loss of property and life, substantially impacting the Mexican economy.

By opening up real estate and creating cleanup jobs.

Sure, it's unlikely that those produced a 60% drop or fall...

And you yourself have just admitted that they don't, then, affect the context of the INS document's data in any meaningful way. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

The only dogma I'm holding to here is the First Amendment. I've stubbornly refused to discard the current Supreme Court interpretation of it, and it firmly denies your interpretation of USC 1324-1326.

No, in fact, it really doesn't. But I've already shown you why it doesn't, and there's no reason to believe you'll suddenly stop being dogmatic on the issue at this point.

Base falsehood.

Demonstrated fact, and one you go on demonstrating in post after post.

"I have never claimed that it applies to political discourse."

This statement is contradicted by:

"I claimed it applies to political discourse [which meets certain conditions]."

Wanna try that again? Here we go:

"I have never claimed that it applies to political discourse {in general}."

Which is what you're alleging it would do. Not general political discourse, but a very specific topic of political discourse which has resulted in an increase in crime.

So you do not now claim that the ACLU is violating civil rights or laws of the land by placing its legal observers there?

I never have claimed that they violated civil rights or laws by placing legal observers. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? There are two other acts they've committed, one of which I conclude disregards Americans' civil right to equal protection under the law, and the other which I conclude is an enticement to commit crime. Those are two distinct, specific acts which are objectionable for distinct, specific reasons; placing observers is another distinct, specific act, but nowhere have I said that that act in specific violates civil liberties or constitutes a crime.

See above for another fine example of contradiction within what you've said. "I've never claimed... I claimed."

Except, as just demonstrated, there's no contradiction other than the one you either permitted yourself through laziness or engineered out of a malicious attempt at deception.

snip

McCarthy is a seperate subject, and if you want to go more in-depth on that subject, start a new thread.

What, that extra scattershot BS? Resolve the outstanding egregious contradiction in your own words first.

Already have; yet, I have no doubt that you'll refuse to answer the aforementioned questions anyway.

 

[The Question]

The whole purpose of this thread is comparing the ACLU and the Minutemen.

No, the whole purpose of this thread is to point and laugh at the ACLU for trying to use the law in defense of lawbreakers and getting bitchslapped for it.

 

[TJHairball]

What additional motivation do you need? You need the money, and you can take it without resistance or the possibility of punishment. You are seriously pressing the ignorance act to new extremes.

What the blazes do I need it for? See, you don't just "need money." You "need money for Gramma's operation," or "need money in order to put together a revolutionary army," etc etc etc.

In direct result of amnesty, lest anyone forget.

Probably largely attributable. As I've mentioned, there are some historical confounds in place of the political and economic varieties..

You're confusing (perhaps deliberately) two different concepts:

1. Odds that a crime would be committed, and
2. An increase in the commission of the crime.

What the INS document describes is a 60% increase in the rate at which the crime was committed.

It's all well and good to have a statistical correlation here.

I don't in the least deny that it's most likely that amnesty increased the rate of illegal immigration. (And if by an average of 300,000 crossings a year for 5 years, that's a total of up to 1.5 million additional immigrants, staying however long illegals typically stay.)

The problem is that, probably causing a certain number more illegals, amnesty:

a.) Still isn't advocacy of illegal border crossing, critically, and
b.) Is not a direct attributable cause for any particular case, i.e., not an imminent (direct) cause.

Then unless you can demonstrate a 60% increase in the number of illegals joining the military during the time period to which the quoted INS document applies and subtract from that the number of illegals who did not join, those events remain irrelevant to the increase in crime.

Not at all what I suggest...

... I'm suggesting that concern the US might go drafting people into its war (founded or not) represent a potential confound decreasing the number of immigrants.

Throw in the fact that the precise number of illegal crossings per year is widely disputed, and some of the figures I've seen suggest that the rate increased throughout the 90s, and we may have further cause for confusion. I certainly would like to see a great deal more in the way of hard figures. But none of that is important. I by and large trust the INS's conclusion that amnesty can be attributed with an increase in illegal immigration.

The problem is this. We're not talking about some direct cause-and-effect like a bowling ball hitting pins; we're talking about an indirect chain, like correlating the number of bowlers with the plaster that falls off the ceiling.

It's not a problem of not having the statistical suggestion of cause and effect; it's the problem of imminence, directness, and advocacy. You keep saying that very indirect chains and loosely interpretable advocacy qualifies for this test.

It doesn't. We could easily apply an indirect statistical chain to Brandenburg's statements to show they were likely to eventually produce an increase in violence, indirectly, but the imminence is key. This is why KKK members do not have a history of being summarily jailed whenever they speak in public; it's a question of the imminence of the advocated behavior. Capiche?

By opening up real estate and creating cleanup jobs.

By wiping out people's lives and making them desperate for money.

Sure, disasters "create cleanup jobs," and earthquakes "open real estate," but they still create a population of homeless poor people with a burning desire for cash.

No, in fact, it really doesn't. But I've already shown you why it doesn't, and there's no reason to believe you'll suddenly stop being dogmatic on the issue at this point.

It does. Try applying your standards of imminency to the Brandenburg v Ohio case and you should be able to see.

Demonstrated fact, and one you go on demonstrating in post after post.

Hardly.

Wanna try that again? Here we go:

Which is what you're alleging it would do. Not general political discourse, but a very specific topic of political discourse which has resulted in an increase in crime.

When you regulate some specific type of political discourse, you are - to put it very bluntly - regulating political discourse.

...

Is English so hard to learn, TQ? So lookie here. Your interpretation of the law states that this law restricts political discourse.

I never have claimed that they violated civil rights

So you now readily admit the Minuteman spokesman you quoted at the start of the article is completely bullshitting the public when whining about the ACLU trampling on their civil rights?

Good. Concession accepted.

Except, as just demonstrated, there's no contradiction other than the one you either permitted yourself through laziness or engineered out of a malicious attempt at deception.

There's a very plain contradiction between "Does not X" and "Does X if Y," TQ, provided Y is anything that ever happens. Learn language and logic.

 

[The Question]

What the blazes do I need it for? See, you don't just "need money." You "need money for Gramma's operation," or "need money in order to put together a revolutionary army," etc etc etc.

Let's restate that to clear away your bullshit here:

"See, you don't just 'need money'. You 'need money xxx', or 'need money xxx."

See the commonality there? You're trying to get off-topic. We're establishing motive -- a need for money, basis of the need is a seperate subject -- and opportunity. Corrupt third-world shithole that Mexico is + marginally less-corrupt, dramatically less third-world that U.S. is = Motive. Discussion of amnesty (where amnesty = impunity for breaking immigration law) = opportunity. "Coyotes" (human traffickers) = means. Now motive and means already existed. It was Bush and Congress who put the third piece of the puzzle into place when they provided potential illegals with the perception of opportunity.

Probably largely attributable. As I've mentioned, there are some historical confounds in place of the political and economic varieties..It's all well and good to have a statistical correlation here.

And all your stuff about confounds does not alter or reduce the statistical data. Again, you're arguing from ignorance. "Well, maybe this had an impact, and maybe this other thing had an impact, and... we just don't know."

What we don't know isn't under discussion. What we do know is.

I don't in the least deny that it's most likely that amnesty increased the rate of illegal immigration. (And if by an average of 300,000 crossings a year for 5 years, that's a total of up to 1.5 million additional immigrants, staying however long illegals typically stay.)

Thank you -- yes, that is the most likely factor, according to INS findings. Which means that Bush and Congress, speaking on the issue from positions of authority, had a responsibility to know beforehand the effect that discussion of amnesty would have. They had a responsibility to know that offering promises of amnesty would result in an increase in illegal activity -- including violence against American citizens -- because amnesty had already had that effect in the past. At the very least, the politicians who engaged in this speech should be removed from office for abrogating the oaths they were sworn in under.

The problem is that, probably causing a certain number more illegals, amnesty:

a.) Still isn't advocacy of illegal border crossing, critically, and

It needn't necessarily be direct advocacy -- oh, to pass the Brandenburg test it would need to be, I'll give you that -- but have a look at this. Now, supposedly, what is in the interests of the American people is (or ought to be) what is in the interests of the State.

b.) Is not a direct attributable cause for any particular case, i.e., not an imminent (direct) cause.

It is the most direct cause, which you yourself have already conceded.

The problem is this. We're not talking about some direct cause-and-effect like a bowling ball hitting pins; we're talking about an indirect chain, like correlating the number of bowlers with the plaster that falls off the ceiling.

According to the INS findings, which you yourself don't dispute, it is not at all indirect.

It's not a problem of not having the statistical suggestion of cause and effect; it's the problem of imminence, directness, and advocacy.

A led to B then. This was known between then and now. A is leading to B now. Directness and imminence have been established.

You keep saying that very indirect chains and loosely interpretable advocacy qualifies for this test.

The chains are not indirect, and advocacy is not at all loosely interpretable. There aren't all that damn many interpretations of the word 'amnesty'.

It doesn't. We could easily apply an indirect statistical chain to Brandenburg's statements to show they were likely to eventually produce an increase in violence, indirectly, but the imminence is key.

And the imminence is there.

This is why KKK members do not have a history of being summarily jailed whenever they speak in public; it's a question of the imminence of the advocated behavior. Capiche?

I thought it was because they seldom if ever openly speak about committing crimes at all. And it's 'capisce'.

By wiping out people's lives and making them desperate for money.

Sure, disasters "create cleanup jobs," and earthquakes "open real estate," but they still create a population of homeless poor people with a burning desire for cash.

And greater than usual opportunities to earn that cash, legally. Natural disasters create jobs for contractors not only in cleanup but in reconstruction, logistical support, shipping...

It does. Try applying your standards of imminency to the Brandenburg v Ohio case and you should be able to see.

There's no commonality here. There would be if Brandenburg's speech had demonstrably led to the commission of a specific criminal act of which he spoke in the past, and did so again on a second occurrence.

There was no imminence in the Brandenburg v Ohio case. Hardly.

Precisely, because no crime attributable to his speech occurred.

When you regulate some specific type of political discourse, you are - to put it very bluntly - regulating political discourse.

But not, as you seem to insist on implying, regulating political discourse in general.

Is English so hard to learn, TQ?

No, which is why it's so tragicomical to see you struggling with it.

So lookie here. Your interpretation of the law states that this law restricts political discourse.

One very specific type of political discourse, not political discourse in general. Are you gonna need to read that a few more times before it sinks in that continuing to ignore the distinction only makes you look like a pitiable idiot?

So you now readily admit the Minuteman spokesman you quoted at the start of the article is completely bullshitting the public when whining about the ACLU trampling on their civil rights?

No, I don't. Know why? Care to take a guess?

"Those American Civil Liberties Union persons up there are not concerned about me at all. So they are not really the American Civil Liberties Union are they? Because they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights to property."

The reason I don't admit that the Minuteman spokesman is bulshitting the public or whining about the ACLU trampling on "their" rights is because neither anyone in the quoted article, nor myself, have ever claimed any such thing.

There's a very plain contradiction between "Does not X" and "Does X if Y," TQ, provided Y is anything that ever happens. Learn language and logic.

You're joking. Want it in an analogy? "You cannot drive a Ferrari here." does not equal "You cannot drive a car here." It only equals, "You cannot drive a Ferrari here."

Similarly, "You cannot engage in political discourse which encourages foreign aggression against American interests while in public office." does not equal, "You cannot engage in political discourse."

And you still haven't answered my earlier questions. If you'd just rather not expose the nature of your bias against American interests on this issue, I understand. Doing so would be redundant at this point anyway.

 

[The Question]

And yeah, the ACLU demonstrates anti-American bias by referring to illegals as simply "immigrants," which is not only patently dishonest, but displays an astonishing bias and lack of consideration toward real immigrants, i.e. those who follow legal procedure to become U.S. citizens.

See sig -- that would be like calling car thieves, "motorists", calling looters, "shoppers", or calling burglars, "building inspectors."

 

[TJHairball]

Now motive and means already existed. It was Bush and Congress who put the third piece of the puzzle into place when they provided potential illegals with the perception of opportunity.

Perception?

The opportunity exists, and has for a long time. Privacy rights plus due process plus complete failure to crack down on corporations gives opportunity in spades.

And all your stuff about confounds does not alter or reduce the statistical data. Again, you're arguing from ignorance. "Well, maybe this had an impact, and maybe this other thing had an impact, and... we just don't know."

Because we have one sample incident.

A single experiment, carried on once in unique conditions and never repeated. It's hellaciously hard to build a case without experimental controls and trying to retroactively explain data without devising any way to test the results - recall the question of man causing global warming. We weren't too sure until 10 years ago, and there was a lot more room for doubt five years ago than now.

It needn't necessarily be direct advocacy -- oh, to pass the Brandenburg test it would need to be, I'll give you that -- but have a look at this. Now, supposedly, what is in the interests of the American people is (or ought to be) what is in the interests of the State.

Not at all showing direct advocacy not being required.

An op-ed piece about how the Supreme Court often does not defend rights nearly as rigorously in wartime, and you're making the case that Mexico is at war with us. The article suggests that the Court won't follow Brandenburg - not that Brandenburg doesn't require directness.

I understand what you're getting at... but I for one consider the decision of (for example) Korematsu to be a bad one, and I still maintain the hope (perhaps overly optimistic) that the Supreme Court has developed enough of a backbone to stand up for rights even during a heated war. Myself, I hope that I will never be convicted in court for the crime of criticizing a standing president during wartime - which charge could certainly be applied to both of us.

It is the most direct cause, which you yourself have already conceded.

Most direct?

An increase from 500,000 to 800,000 does not represent the cause of most illegal immigration in the period. The most direct causes were, and remain, economic opportunity.

According to the INS findings, which you yourself don't dispute, it is not at all indirect.

The INS findings have them linked. That doesn't mean there are other links in causality, or other chains of cause and effect involved. (In fact, the figures require such.)

And the imminence is there.

It is not.

There's no commonality here. There would be if Brandenburg's speech had demonstrably led to the commission of a specific criminal act of which he spoke in the past, and did so again on a second occurrence.

And can you link any particular speech made by a politician to increases in immigration?

No more than we can link Brandenburg's speech to the violent acts committed by the KKK subsequent to 1969.

Precisely, because no crime attributable to his speech occurred.

Whether or not any crime actually occurred is not part of the test; it is a question of likelihood and imminence.

But not, as you seem to insist on implying, regulating political discourse in general.

Regulating specific instances of political discourse requires the ability to regulate political discourse in general... of course.

You're still not grasping the logical and linguistic flaw in your words. When you state that your interpretation doesn't mean the law is regulating political discourse, that means that it affects no political discourse. When I say it does, it means that it affects some form of political discourse. Clearly your interpretation of USC 1324-1326 doesn't affect all political discourse.

I quite well understand at this point what you're claiming to have said. The problem is that you've got the meaning of "Does not affect political discourse" all wrong syntactically. Somehow.

No, I don't. Know why? Care to take a guess?

The reason I don't admit that the Minuteman spokesman is bulshitting the public or whining about the ACLU trampling on "their" rights is because neither anyone in the quoted article, nor myself, have ever claimed any such thing.

...they don't give a darn about what has happened to my constitutional rights...

Random Minuteman supporter online: Is there a law firm or lawyer brave enough or greedy enough to bring a class action civil rights suit againt the ACLU?

The perception seems quite common and widely repeated among critics of the ACLU.

You're joking. Want it in an analogy? "You cannot drive a Ferrari here." does not equal "You cannot drive a car here." It only equals, "You cannot drive a Ferrari here."

Similarly, "You cannot engage in political discourse which encourages foreign aggression against American interests while in public office." does not equal, "You cannot engage in political discourse."

Both cases in which the generalized form is that of "some," meaning the negation of the statement requires a universal negation.

In the case "My interpretation does not regulate political discourse," the initial statement is a universal. It's like saying "Our laws do not regulate guns," which is false if any law regulates guns.

Much like saying "I do not drive cars" contradicts "I drive a Ferrarri."

And you still haven't answered my earlier questions. If you'd just rather not expose the nature of your bias against American interests on this issue, I understand. Doing so would be redundant at this point anyway.

Which, the ridiculous bit about suggesting that we should follow Mexico's example in shaking down illegal immigrants?

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Slooshy that, 'veck?

It's the 15 hour zvook of no one caring.

 

[The Question]

The fact is that according to the INS findings, incentive and crime remained constant until the 86 amnesty, at which point both underwent a simultaneous increase. The one new variable was the amnesty. It was not the most direct cause of the crime -- it was the most direct cause of the increase in that particular crime. Was it the sole cause of the increase? No. Was it the most direct cause of the crime? No. It was the most direct cause of the increase. However, the responsibility for those additional crimes -- responsibility for the increase -- lies with the politicians who openly discussed amnesty.

And a previous event where a specific kind of speech has resulted in a crime creates a precedent for imminence in future instances of that same specific kind of speech.

And no, regulating specific types of political discourse does not necessitate regulating all types of political discourse. Your continuing refusals to differentiate specific speech from speech in general really aren't doing your cause any favors.

And with regard to the "spokesman" I believe you referred to her as? She's absolutely right, isn't she? The ACLU doesn't give a shit about her or Americans like her, does it?

 

[Dark Link]

U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer

While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen -- and telling the Mexican government where they are.

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Minuteman members were not so sanguine about the arrangement, however, saying that reporting their location to Mexican officials nullifies their effectiveness along the border and could endanger their lives.

"Now we know why it seemed like Mexican officials knew where we were all the time," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "It's unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. They are sending intelligence to a nation where corruption runs rampant, and that could be getting into the hands of criminal cartels.

"They just basically endangered the lives of American people."

Officials with the Mexican consulate in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Monday.

Martinez said reporting the location of immigrant apprehensions to consulate representatives is common practice if an illegal immigrant requests counsel or believes they have been mistreated.

"Once an illegal alien is apprehended, they can request counsel," he said. "We have to give their counsel the information about their apprehension, and that includes where they are apprehended, whether a Minuteman volunteer spotted them or a citizen."

Martinez said Mexico's official perception of the civilian groups is that they are vigilantes, a belief the Border Patrol hoped to allay by entering into the cooperative agreement.

One of the documents on the Web site, "Actions of the Mexican Government in Relation to the Activities of Vigilante Groups," states that Mexican consulate representatives stay in close contact with Border Patrol chiefs to ensure the safety of migrants trying to enter the U.S., those being detained and the actions of all "vigilantes" along the border.

"The Mexican consul in Presidio also contacted the chief of the Border Patrol in the Marfa Sector to solicit his cooperation in case they detect any activity of `vigilantes,' and was told to immediately contact the consulate if there was," according to the document.

"Presidio" refers to Presidio County, Texas, which is in the Big Bend region and a gateway to northern Mexico.

The document also describes a meeting with San Diego Border Patrol sector chief Darryl Griffen.

"(Griffen) said that the Border Patrol will not permit any violence or any actions contrary to the law by the groups, and he is continuously aware of (the volunteer organizations') operations," according to the document. "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented Mexicans."

The documents specifically named the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and its patrols, which began monitoring Arizona's southern border in April 2005, as well as Friends of the Border Patrol, a Chino-based nonprofit.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing more than 10,000 Border Patrol agents, said agents have complained for years about the Mexican consulate's influence over the agency.

"It worries me (that the Mexican government) seems to be unduly influencing our enforcement policies. That's not a legitimate role for any foreign nation," Bonner said, though he added, "It doesn't surprise me."

Border Patrol agents interviewed by the Daily Bulletin said they have been asked to report to sector headquarters the location of all civilian volunteer groups, but to not file the groups' names in reports if they spot illegal immigrants.

"Last year an internal memo notified all agents not to give credit to Minuteman volunteers or others who call in sightings of illegal aliens," said one agent, who spoke on the condition he not be identified. "We were told to list it as a citizen call and leave it at that. Many times, we were told not to go out to Minuteman calls."

The document also mentions locations of field operations of Friends of the Border Patrol, which patrolled the San Diego sector from June to November 2005. Mexican officials had access to the exact location of the group founded by Andy Ramirez, which ran its patrols from the Rough Acre Ranch, a private property in McCain Valley.

Ramirez said that for safety reasons, he disclosed the location of his ranch patrol only to San Diego Border Patrol and law enforcement officials. The group did not apprehend or spot any undocumented migrants in that area.

"We did not release this information ... to the media or anyone else," Ramirez said. "We didn't want to publicize that information. But there it is, right on the Mexican government's Web site, and our government gave it to them."

Visit the Mexican Government's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web Site. Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes.

http://www.sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3.htm

So, It's not only the ACLU, but our own government as well.

I wonder how high up the chain of corruption goes?