Log in or Sign up

New Arizona Immigration Enforcement Laws

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by OkieTigerTK, Apr 23, 2010.

Page 11 of 77

Indiana Tiger Founding Member

Joined:

Jan 13, 2005

Messages:

509

Likes Received:

26

red55 said: ↑

I challenge you to document this absurd claim.
Click to expand...

From the Toronto Star 12/17/2002:

Al Qaeda now in Canada: CSIS

Osama bin Laden's terrorist network is operating in Canada and has the capacity to support terrorist activities across North America, Canada's spy agency says.

That assessment by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) was contained in court documents released yesterday in connection with the detention of an Algerian man arrested in Ottawa last week.

The Algerian, Mohammed Harkat, 34, is described in court documents as being associated with the bin Laden network and as someone who is suspected of ties to senior members of the network, including Abu Zubaydah, a top lieutenant.

Zubaydah is being held at an undisclosed location by U.S. authorities.

The intelligence service says in the documents that bin Laden cells in Canada "have the capability and conviction to provide support for terrorist activities in North America."

Canada's Solicitor-General Wayne Easter and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre signed a rare national security certificate declaring Harkat a threat to national security and clearing the way for his arrest and deportation proceedings.

A spokesperson for Easter, who is in Washington meeting with U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft, said the certificate was signed Dec. 9.

The CSIS court document is background material supporting the security certificate, filed in the Federal Court.

"Most of these individuals are very security conscious and operate in cell-like structures," the document states.

An intelligence official said that Harkat and another man, who was not identified, were seen recently photographing the Parliament buildings and the Supreme Court in Ottawa, possibly in preparation for an attack.

The court document said that Harkat also is believed to have helped Islamic militants from Afghanistan, Chechnya and Pakistan enter Canada illegally and to have developed extensive contacts in militant circles.

"Harkat has been in contact with other individuals, known to be involved in Islamic militant activity," the court document reads.

"His support for individuals and groups involved in political violence or terrorist activity, his alliances with Islamic extremists and his use of security techniques lead the CSIS to believe that Harkat is associated with organizations that support the use of political violence and terrorism," the document states.

Harkat arrived in Canada from Malaysia by way of England on Oct. 6, 1995, using a false Saudi passport, CSIS said. Saudi passports have been the document of choice for Islamic militants because those who held them could enter Canada without a visa until this year.

Harkat was granted refugee status in 1997. Later, Canadian authorities alleged that he was involved with the Armed Islamic Group, which is trying to overthrow the government of Algeria, and that he has connections with Zubaydah.

Harkat has not been charged with a crime but under sections of Canada's immigration law he can be detained and deported on the basis of being judged a threat to national security.

Well before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Canada's intelligence service had declared extremism by Sunni Muslim militants to be the lead investigation with CSIS's Counter Terrorism program and the events of Sept. 11 only intensified that focus.
And for some years now, the intelligence agency has warned that with the possible exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active in Canada than anywhere in the world.

Some supporters of the international Islamic Jihad cause are also present in Canada, with a few of them possibly linked to Al Qaida, the service says.

Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian refugee claimant who was arrested crossing the U.S. border from Canada with explosives in December, 1999 has been accused by the U.S. of working on behalf of Al Qaeda.

Other alleged Canadian Al Qaeda connections include former Toronto resident teenager Omar Khadr and St. Catharines' Mohamed Jabarah.

Khadr is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with 600 other detainees captured by the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

And Jabarah, 20, a Kuwait-born Canadian citizen, is suspected of links to Al Qaeda and a plot to bomb Israeli and U.S. embassies in Singapore.

Copyright (c) 2002 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved.

Source: Toronto Star (Canada), Dec 17, 2002
Click to expand...

I found a reference to the CSIS report, but it is no longer on line as far as I can tell.

Indiana Tiger, Apr 27, 2010

#101
Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

12,326

Likes Received:

575

Not surprised, where isn't Al Qaeda these days?
The north border is still better and more secure than the south border.
Nothing but chaos at the south border, anything goes.
I have been through the north border driving from the lower 48 to Alaska.

Sourdoughman, Apr 27, 2010

#102
Indiana Tiger Founding Member

Joined:

Jan 13, 2005

Messages:

509

Likes Received:

26

red55 said: ↑

Stop right there. I really don't care about moral arguments for the risks they take or how hard their lives are or what their desires are.
Click to expand...

I have made no moral arguments. I have simply listed reasons why you will be destined to be frustrated.

red55 said: ↑

You either support the crimes of illegal Mexican Nationals or support the rights of US Citizens and legal Mexican immigrants. Do you or do you not accept that coming here without proper credentials is a crime?
Click to expand...

I think speeding; not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, etc is a moving violation and not a crime. I think parking in a no parking zone is a parking violation and not a crime. I think coming here without credentials is an immigration violation and not a crime.

red55 said: ↑

I think it is imperceptive of you to imagine that. I clearly was showing that two birds can be killed with one stone by securing our borders and requiring national ID. It equates them not at all, it simply shows that there are bonuses to securing our borders.

Nonsense. There are huge economic, social, political, and law enforcement reasons that make enforcing our laws important to us as a nation. Armed Mexican drug gangs are executing people north of the border now. It has to be controlled.

People disagree. Threats to our economy are important enough.
Click to expand...

We disagree on how to effectively deal with the separate issues of security, drugs and immigration. One tool does not fit all.

red55 said: ↑

Perhaps because they report crimes in lower numbers than the general population. In fact they don't report many crimes at all in their crime-ridden neighborhoods. I wonder why . .
Click to expand...

If illegals were only committing crimes against other illegals, I would think you wouldn't give a ****. .

red55 said: ↑

I have no problems with jailing the serious offenders. Make the employers hire only documented guest workers. It works for agricultural jobs that we need them for. But all these contractors who are hiring cheap Mexican illegals to displace millions of former American blue-collar employees in the construction and food-service industries are hurting our economy. Especially the corporations that already outsourced their factories and now want to be able to import illegal mexicans to work jobs that they couldn't export.
Click to expand...

This will make a serious dent in the immigration problem, but I just think it's your fingers typing to sound balanced. Your passion about illegals is obvious and this is clinical. You won't fight for this.

Indiana Tiger, Apr 27, 2010

#103
Indiana Tiger Founding Member

Joined:

Jan 13, 2005

Messages:

509

Likes Received:

26

Sourdoughman said: ↑

Not surprised, where isn't Al Qaeda these days?
The north border is still better and more secure than the south border.
Nothing but chaos at the south border, anything goes.
I have been through the north border driving from the lower 48 to Alaska.
Click to expand...

Here's the GAO Report: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:d07884t.pdf

Indiana Tiger, Apr 27, 2010

#104
LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

Joined:

Jun 8, 2008

Messages:

44,037

Likes Received:

18,027

I would be more worried about MS 13 than Al Queda. Al Queda is a bunch of pussies compared to Mara.

LaSalleAve, Apr 27, 2010

#105
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

Indiana Tiger said: ↑

I have made no moral arguments. I have simply listed reasons why you will be destined to be frustrated.
Click to expand...

They are very poor reasons and frustrate me not at all. It's just another attempt to moralize lawbreaking.

Indiana Tiger said: ↑

I think speeding; not coming to a full stop at a stop sign, etc is a moving violation and not a crime. I think parking in a no parking zone is a parking violation and not a crime. I think coming here without credentials is an immigration violation and not a crime.
Click to expand...

I think you're dreaming, amigo. Illegal entry is a federal offense punishable by both civil and criminal penalties including imprisonment as well as deportation.

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Click to expand...

Indiana Tiger said: ↑

We disagree on how to effectively deal with the separate issues of security, drugs and immigration. One tool does not fit all.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that, but I also recognize that some tools fit many.

Indiana Tiger said: ↑

If illegals were only committing crimes against other illegals, I would think you wouldn't give a ****.
Click to expand...

Please, don't try to imagine what I'm thinking and make up an issue to argue with yourself. I speak my mind very clearly.

Indiana Tiger said: ↑

This will make a serious dent in the immigration problem, but I just think it's your fingers typing to sound balanced. Your passion about illegals is obvious and this is clinical. You won't fight for this.
Click to expand...

You don't get to speak for me, chief. I stated my position plainly and it is consistent with what I've stated many times before on many threads. Why don't you stick to telling us what you think and I'll speak for myself, thank you.

red55, Apr 28, 2010

#106
alfredeneuman Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 12, 2008

Messages:

874

Likes Received:

453

I thought the PC Police stated the term "illegal alien" was no longer to be used. Instead, we should use "undocumented alien". AZ has simply passed a law that says it's illegal to be undocumented.

alfredeneuman, Apr 28, 2010

#107
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

Thats pretty funny to try to simplify it that much. There are major republican figures, who have come out against this law. Its pretty much bs and unconstitutional.

LSUMASTERMIND, Apr 28, 2010

#108
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

red55 said: ↑

It's just another attempt to moralize lawbreaking.
Click to expand...

lawbreaking doesnt need moralizing. i think the dude is trying to explain to you that just because something is illegal that doesnt make it wrong.

martin, Apr 28, 2010

#109
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

Thats pretty funny to try to simplify it that much. There are major republican figures, who have come out against this law. Its pretty much bs and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

How can it be unconstitutional? It simply states that the same laws that have been federal laws for 50 years are now state laws, too.

red55, Apr 28, 2010

#110

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 11 of 77

Share This Page