Reese said:
> >> It may be a straw man to you, but then, you aren't a US Citizen.
I replied:
> >Ok, what does my citizenship status have to do with anything? Elian isn't
> a >citizen either,
>
> This is not what the 11th circuit court of appeals found. Try again.
Do you even bother to look this stuff up? Or are you making it up as you go along?
Quoting from the April 19th opinion handed down by the United States Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit. Docket Number 00-206-CV-KMM (Gonzalez v. Reno et. al.):
"Section 1158(a)(1) provides that '[a]ny alien...irrespective of such alien's status,
may apply for asylum.' Plaintiff (Elian) appears to come within the meaning of '[a]ny
alien.'"
Hate to break it to you, but the boy's an alien.
This seems obvious to anyone but you, including Senator Dodd who has been looking into
passing legislation to specifically grant the boy citizenship.
> >worse yet, he is in the country illegally,
>
> See again, the 1978 public law on illegal immigrants from Cuba. Try again.
Oh, now I KNOW you make this feces up as you go. There are legal and acceptable means
by which to apply for asylum in the United States. There are specific exemptions and
exceptions for Cubans, thank you President Carter, but that does not change the status
of our little swimmer. Arrive in the U.S. through other than a port of entry with no
valid entry visa and you are, hate to tell you, an illegal alien- Cuban, Mexican,
German, Icelandic or otherwise. Now, you may apply for asylum if you wish, and stay
your deportation hearings, but you're still an illegal alien and you should expect to
be detained and held in federal custody.
> >yet this is the "victim" of this outrageous use of force that you would
> have >us weep for?
>
> What "us"??? you aren't a citizen of either country, referring to your
> pocket pussy or something?
How is it you think you have such a specific understanding of my citizenship status?
> >> It's actually a 2nd issue. Hint: It was excessive. Drastically so.
> >
> >What injuries were reported? Was deadly force used? How many rounds were
> fired?
>
> You miss the point.
Not at all. If you indicate that excessive force was used, what injuries were
reported?
> The boy could have been removed with half that # of
> jack-booted thugs, or by one of the two police sweeps the day before. Oh,
> and for your information, numerous reporters were told what they could not
> do (film & record audio), on pain of being shot.
I have no idea if that's true or not, but even if it is, that's not force. Believe it
or not, its not even illegal to tell a reporter to stop recording or to point a weapon
at him and tell him to stop recording. The reporter probably doesn't have to stop
either, but still, all this amounts to a big "so what?"
> >The family locked and barricaded the door with a sofa,
>
> So? I know people who run a perimeter check, ensuring all windows are
> closed & latched, all doors closed & bolted before going to bed also.
But not to stop duly sworn law enforcement agents from executing a lawful warrant. I
mean, really.
> What's your point? Seen one of those TV shows with 9 jillion locks on a
> NYC apartment door?
I grow tired of this... I do hope you actually know you're being an idiot.
> >bystanders used television cables to try and restrain agents.
>
> See/hear about what the protestors did in Seattle and DC? What are you
> trying to say?
So if the Jones' obstruct justice, anyone can? Duh.
> >Agents arrived armed, unable to open the door, battered it down, entered
> the home brandishing weapons, removed the child, had some small tussles
> with residents and bystanders, some bystanders who attempted to prevent the
> flight of the agents and their newly "liberated" non-citizen were pepper
> sprayed and poked or whacked with clubs. So? More force is actually used
> on college campuses or in the inner cities after an NCAA or NBA team wins
> the championship, and rarely are children under 12 at issue there.
>
> Yep. And the family of the uncle is pursuing a grievance for violation of
> their 4th Amendment rights.
Uh, the only recourse they would ever have is to exclude any evidence obtained in that
search from use at a trial.
> Just because this shit passes muster in your
> country doesn't mean it's legal over here.
Ah, but you have no idea how funny that is. It wouldn't pass muster in my country.
The law enforcement officers would likely be in jail now. It is however totally
legal, quite beyond reproach in the United States. Got a problem with that? Vote.
> >> CNN has some articles at their website about their cameramen being
> >> roughhoused and threatened.
> >
> >What injuries did he sustain?
>
> He? They. Give them some credit. Discretion being the better part of
> valor, they followed orders and didn't get shot.
What injuries did they sustain?
> >Ok, for the third time:
> >
> >"The warrant was issued on Friday by a Miami Judge. It gave the feds
> power to search for and seize Elian at any time prior to May 1- which they
> did."
>
> And yet again, if the residence of Lazaro Gonzalez was unacceptable, the
> 11th circuit court of appeals would have addressed it.
Uh... let's review some terms, all of which are distinct:
Illegal Alien.
Alien of indeterminate status.
Non-Resident Alien.
Resident Alien.
Citizen.
Don't use terms of art like "residence" if you don't know what you're talking about.
> >Try searching the various news sites for "+elian +warrant"
>
> Tried CNN. They even had a link to a warrant they said they obtained on
> Sunday. No case number. Date was mostly illegible. Describes the place
> (Lazaro's residence), the "object" (Elian). Judge had a hispanic/latino
> sounding name. Like I said, check's in the mail dude. Clinton didn't have
> sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, either. Sure they have a warrant, now.
> Sure.
Blah blah blah.
> >Failing that feel free to read the affidavit filed in support of the
> federal search warrant executed April 22:
> >
> >http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/eliansw1.shtml
>
> Gov't sophistry. I'd provide a link for the 11th circuit court of appleals
> decision, but it either isn't up yet, or isn't going to be published.
> Probably the later.
It's been up a long time. How is it that you didn't know this but yet you knew a few
paragraphs ago all about what the 11th circuit said, at least well enough to attempt
to correct me on it?
> >There are legal ways to enter the United States and their are
> illegal ways.
>
> Not when you are a Cuban fleeing Castro & his tyranny, that's why we have
> that 1978 public law you keep forgetting about.
Cite it with analysis please.
> >What really does offend me is that the realities of the issue have been so
> blurred by the political agendas here (on both sides) that no one can see
> through the muck anymore.
>
> It's very simple. Cubans leave Cuba w/out Castro's permission and come to
> the US seeking asylum. The 1978 law says we grant it to them, because they
> are from Cuba and Castro is a despicable piece of shit. End of story.
Thousands of Cubans are regularly sent back. You think they somehow get a free pass?
Do some homework.
>> If anything, brandishing that particular "insult" (communism) so indiscriminately
>> tends to reduce whatever is left of the speaker's waning credibility.
>> You'd probably be better off calling Duncan Frisell a statist.
>
> It isn't indiscriminate. You support communism over freedom and the
> pursuit thereof, you're a fucking communist in my eyes.
What communism did I support? Please.
> Reese
This will be my last reply on this subject. Sheesh.
