Arizona threatens to cut power in L.A.

[David Jamieson]

Yeah, I must be a real radical and an ogre. People like me who think that they should actually get to keep the money they EARN are horrible people. Of course those who live off of others are just wonderful people.

It's your veiled racism, baiting and general attitude of hatred that your project that turns me off. I don't give a crap about your positions on taxes. Who'd you live off of in your childhood? Do you hate children too because they live off of others. how about the weak, the sick, the frail, the mentally challenged.

do you even think for a second before you say the remarkable and ubiquitous stupid things you do utter?

i'm not sure you do, in fact, I'm pretty certain you don't put much thought into much beyond the length of your arm.

[Reality_Check]

I said the law punishes employers who hire illegals, and it does.

Lightly, by a business license suspention (potentially) in the event of a 1st offense, if the employer does not file a quarterly report in a timely fashion, i.e. the suspension would not be due to the hiring of an illegal immigrant itself. And by a revokation in the event of a 2nd offense. There is plenty of wiggle room for an employer to claim entrapment by law enforcement agents as well as to claim that the hire of an illegal immigrant was in good faith. There are no fines or jail time penalties in the bill.

[mawali]

I talked with some people and they state that California actually owns the AZ power facility(ies) based on power grid investment and capital expenditures!

[1bad65]

It's your veiled racism, baiting and general attitude of hatred that your project that turns me off. I don't give a crap about your positions on taxes. Who'd you live off of in your childhood? Do you hate children too because they live off of others. how about the weak, the sick, the frail, the mentally challenged.

do you even think for a second before you say the remarkable and ubiquitous stupid things you do utter?

i'm not sure you do, in fact, I'm pretty certain you don't put much thought into much beyond the length of your arm.

It's obvious whose losing the debate. Once you play the race card, you know you have no legitimate arguments left.

As for kids living off their parents, stop being ludicrous. Of course they do, and I have no problems with that. That's how human beings raise their offspring, so stop being ridiculous. I have a problem when the parents have to take from others (including others who are raising their kids without taking from others) to raise their kids.

I am not averse to taking care of the sick and the disabled. That's being a human being. I have a problem with taking care of able-bodied people who either refuse to work and/or have made bad decisions and cannot take care of their responsibilities.

No, I really don't put much though into my posts. Actually, I don't put any thought into them. I just cut-and-paste from FoxNews, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh.

[1bad65]

Lightly, by a business license suspention (potentially) in the event of a 1st offense, if the employer does not file a quarterly report in a timely fashion, i.e. the suspension would not be due to the hiring of an illegal immigrant itself. And by a revokation in the event of a 2nd offense. There is plenty of wiggle room for an employer to claim entrapment by law enforcement agents as well as to claim that the hire of an illegal immigrant was in good faith. There are no fines or jail time penalties in the bill.

Please show us that.

Here is a copy of the bill:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/sb1070s.pdf

Be sure to show us this "wiggle room" you claim the bill has in it. I'm betting you won't even find the word "entrapment" in the bill.

[Reality_Check]

I'm betting you won't even find the word "entrapment" in the bill.

Sure, I'll take that bet.

K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:

1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

[Lucas]

Sure, I'll take that bet.

lol


.............

[KC Elbows]

Yeah, but can you find the words 'opportunistic electioneering tactic' and 'flagrant voter manipulation' in there?

Oh wait, that goes without saying.

[David Jamieson]

*snipped drivel*

No, I really don't put much though into my posts. Actually, I don't put any thought into them. I just cut-and-paste from FoxNews, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh.

yes, we know this. As for your other comments, I can only tell you this. There is no debate, there is you shouting nonsense and people correcting you, followed by you denying the corrections and continue to spew your bile.

[1bad65]

You need to read this part of the bill:

"AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:"

So the employers have the burden of proof when claiming entrapment.

And one more thing, thank you for proving MY point. I said there were penalties against employers in the bill, and I was 100% correct.

[1bad65]

yes, we know this. As for your other comments, I can only tell you this. There is no debate, there is you shouting nonsense and people correcting you, followed by you denying the corrections and continue to spew your bile.

You go ahead and tell yourself that.

Well, the no debate part is correct at those times where you call me a racist instead of engaging in debate.

[Reality_Check]

You need to read this part of the bill:

"AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:"

So the employers have the burden of proof when claiming entrapment.

And one more thing, thank you for proving MY point. I said there were penalties against employers in the bill, and I was 100% correct.

That's generally the case with any entrapment defense. In addition, it would seem to be self-evident that one's defense would need to be clear and convincing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a defense.

I never said you were wrong about there being penalties. I was adding needed context.

Perhaps you should read the bill so that you don't make foolish bets about words like "entrapment" being part of the text of the bill.

[David Jamieson]

That's generally the case with any entrapment defense. In addition, it would seem to be self-evident that one's defense would need to be clear and convincing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much of a defense.

I never said you were wrong about there being penalties. I was adding needed context.

Perhaps you should read the bill so that you don't make foolish bets about words like "entrapment" being part of the text of the bill.

He's betting on others not reading the bill either in order to falsely push his own agenda of course. This is 1bads MO.

1bad seems to work from a point of emotionalism. Virtually every post he has made is about american politics. So, if he claims he has no agenda, he's full of it. His agenda is to use kfm as his own platform for wielding a message of right wing diatribe, intolerance towards fellow humans and a totalitarian viewpoint in regards to his world that he lives in.

he's like the us politics version of hardwork108. Just a belligerent dummy shouting and shouting and shouting without ever putting any thought into it whatsoever and being even less gracious than possible when corrected or demonstrated to be out of touch with the reality of the situation.

meh, every barrel has one...

[MasterKiller]

[1bad65]

Perhaps you should read the bill so that you don't make foolish bets about words like "entrapment" being part of the text of the bill.

You should have wagered something then. I'm a man of my word, I always pay up.