PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't the US enact these laws?



SaintLouieWoman
07-02-2008, 11:00 PM
IF THE U.S. WOULD ONLY ENACT THESE LAWS...BUT, we've got too many bleeding hearts here that think we have to save the world. If they're here ILLEGALLY, they shouldn't have any rights at all! If we were in another country illegally, we certainly wouldn't have any rights.

1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden
will be deported.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Harsh, you say?.......

The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO



This was sent by a friend in Oklahoma. It's one of those email things. Not sure if it's true, but if so, I think we should reciprocate with our neighbors to the South.

Zeus
07-02-2008, 11:05 PM
This was sent by a friend in Oklahoma. It's one of those email things. Not sure if it's true, but if so, I think we should reciprocate with our neighbors to the South.


Those are Texas Laws concerning Oklahoma immigrants :D

dixierat
07-03-2008, 07:22 AM
Those are Texas Laws concerning Oklahoma immigrants :D

Texas needs Oklahoma. If Oklahoma didn't suck so much, Texas would slide off into the Gulf of Mexico.

:cool:

jediab
07-03-2008, 09:28 AM
Texas needs Oklahoma. If Oklahoma didn't suck so much, Texas would slide off into the Gulf of Mexico.

:cool:

Oh wow that is SUCH a burn! :D

Zeus
07-03-2008, 09:06 PM
Oh wow that is SUCH a burn! :D

Oklahomans are akin to Aggies but Foreigners;)

Cold Warrior
07-03-2008, 09:10 PM
I'm confused. It seems that the OP is advocating for additional federal regulation. I was under the impression that all God-fearin' conservatives were for less, not more, federal laws, intervention, and regulation.

Or is it not a principle, but rather that group is for more regulation with which they agree and less regulation with which they disagree? :confused:

Shannon
07-03-2008, 09:44 PM
I'm confused. It seems that the OP is advocating for additional federal regulation. I was under the impression that all God-fearin' conservatives were for less, not more, federal laws, intervention, and regulation.

Or is it not a principle, but rather that group is for more regulation with which they agree and less regulation with which they disagree? :confused:

I don't know what to do with you sometimes.:rolleyes:

MrsSmith
07-03-2008, 10:25 PM
I'm confused. It seems that the OP is advocating for additional federal regulation. I was under the impression that all God-fearin' conservatives were for less, not more, federal laws, intervention, and regulation.

Or is it not a principle, but rather that group is for more regulation with which they agree and less regulation with which they disagree? :confused:

This list of laws would probably make it possible to remove thousands of current regulations, thereby creating an overall decrease in both regulations AND illegal immigrants...both causes near and dear to the conservative heart.

Zeus
07-03-2008, 11:17 PM
I'm confused. It seems that the OP is advocating for additional federal regulation. I was under the impression that all God-fearin' conservatives were for less, not more, federal laws, intervention, and regulation.

Or is it not a principle, but rather that group is for more regulation with which they agree and less regulation with which they disagree? :confused:


This list of laws would probably make it possible to remove thousands of current regulations, thereby creating an overall decrease in both regulations AND illegal immigrants...both causes near and dear to the conservative heart.

Put some ICE(no pun intended) on it. The swelling should go down shortly. :p

lacarnut
07-03-2008, 11:55 PM
I have a problem with #7 (Investing) & #8 (Buying land).Foreign investing in this country is a good thing. Don't think we will ever have a problem with the Japs buying up our land again.

FeebMaster
07-03-2008, 11:59 PM
You know, every morning I wake up and think to myself: If only the US were a little more like Mexico. That'd really solve all of our problems.




This list of laws would probably make it possible to remove thousands of current regulations, thereby creating an overall decrease in both regulations AND illegal immigrants...both causes near and dear to the conservative heart.

It's funny how often Republicans claim their big government is going to make the government smaller. Oh well, maybe someday.

lacarnut
07-04-2008, 12:08 AM
You know, every morning I wake up and think to myself: If only the US were a little more like Mexico. That'd really solve all of our problems.





It's funny how often Republicans claim their big government is going to make the government smaller. Oh well, maybe someday.

You could always pack your bags and go there. Just think, they would not let you vote even if you wanted to. That would be right up your alley.

FeebMaster
07-04-2008, 12:43 AM
You could always pack your bags and go there. Just think, they would not let you vote even if you wanted to. That would be right up your alley.

Does it hurt?

AmPat
07-04-2008, 04:27 AM
Those are Texas Laws concerning Oklahoma immigrants :D

If only the States surrounding the Marxist State of Taxachussettes had built a fence. The Massholes wouldn't have exported their Tax happy virus to the rest of New England. :mad:

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 08:28 AM
This list of laws would probably make it possible to remove thousands of current regulations, thereby creating an overall decrease in both regulations AND illegal immigrants...both causes near and dear to the conservative heart.

You are kidding, right? Legislators are in the business of making laws. They will never, ever get rid of a large number of them.

Please come into the real world.

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by lacarnut
You could always pack your bags and go there. Just think, they would not let you vote even if you wanted to. That would be right up your alley.
Does it hurt?

Irony is a difficult concept for some. :D

Gingersnap
07-04-2008, 10:45 AM
There's nothing burdensome about requiring that the business of country be conducted in one common language. It would instantly eliminate thousands of full and part time jobs for free lance translators and I'm okay with that part.

lacarnut
07-04-2008, 10:51 AM
Does it hurt?

Does your stupidity hurt?

MrsSmith
07-04-2008, 05:11 PM
You know, every morning I wake up and think to myself: If only the US were a little more like Mexico. That'd really solve all of our problems. It's so much better to wake up and think, "The US is now a little more like Europe." :rolleyes:






It's funny how often Republicans claim their big government is going to make the government smaller. Oh well, maybe someday.

It's funny how many people think "the government" is getting smaller when only the military is affected. Then those same people whine endlessly when Reserves and National Guard must be used instead of regular military...and whine even more over the expense required to rebuild and resupply our military. :rolleyes: Now, if those whiners could be convinced to vote for politicians that would actually cut pork and our largest expense column - social spending ... I know, I'm dreaming. Reduce the amount of waste, cut spending on the Dim plantation, give single moms an education and a babysitter instead of years and years of welfare...never gonna happen. (Oh, and it's all the Republican's fault, don't you know.) :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
07-04-2008, 05:13 PM
You are kidding, right? Legislators are in the business of making laws. They will never, ever get rid of a large number of them.

Please come into the real world.

In the real world, new laws often supercede old ones. :rolleyes:

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 05:41 PM
It's so much better to wake up and think, "The US is now a little more like Europe." :rolleyes:

It's funny how many people think "the government" is getting smaller when only the military is affected. Then those same people whine endlessly when Reserves and National Guard must be used instead of regular military...and whine even more over the expense required to rebuild and resupply our military. :rolleyes: Now, if those whiners could be convinced to vote for politicians that would actually cut pork and our largest expense column - social spending ... I know, I'm dreaming. Reduce the amount of waste, cut spending on the Dim plantation, give single moms an education and a babysitter instead of years and years of welfare...never gonna happen. (Oh, and it's all the Republican's fault, don't you know.) :rolleyes:

The R's had control of the presidency for the last 8 years and control of both houses of Congress for approximately 6 of the last 8 and they've done what exactly to cut social program?

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 05:42 PM
In the real world, new laws often supercede old ones. :rolleyes:

That must be why the number of federal laws and regulations, state laws and regulations, and local laws and regulations have shrunk so dramatically over the last three decades.

FeebMaster
07-04-2008, 06:13 PM
The R's had control of the presidency for the last 8 years and control of both houses of Congress for approximately 6 of the last 8 and they've done what exactly to cut social program?

It's all an illusion. While it looks like the government has grown massively, really it shrunk by 23.79%.




It's so much better to wake up and think, "The US is now a little more like Europe." :rolleyes:

Not really.



Now, if those whiners could be convinced to vote for politicians that would actually cut pork and our largest expense column - social spending ... I know, I'm dreaming. Reduce the amount of waste, cut spending on the Dim plantation, give single moms an education and a babysitter instead of years and years of welfare...never gonna happen. (Oh, and it's all the Republican's fault, don't you know.) :rolleyes:

Good advice. Maybe you should follow it.

Oh, and single moms can pay for their own damned education and babysitters. I thought you wanted to cut social spending.

JB
07-04-2008, 06:27 PM
I'm confused. It seems that the OP is advocating for additional federal regulation. I was under the impression that all God-fearin' conservatives were for less, not more, federal laws, intervention, and regulation.

Or is it not a principle, but rather that group is for more regulation with which they agree and less regulation with which they disagree? :confused:Is that what you took away from the OP? If so, I'm confused.

Are you saying you're for free healthcare, welfare, education, etc for illegals? You'd like ballots and other legal documents to be printed in a variety of languages? You're OK with not deporting illegals when they are caught in this country?

If we could legislate that all away, start drawing up the documents now.

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 06:34 PM
Is that what you took away from the OP? If so, I'm confused.

Are you saying you're for free healthcare, welfare, education, etc for illegals? You'd like ballots and other legal documents to be printed in a variety of languages? You're OK with not deporting illegals when they are caught in this country?

If we could legislate that all away, start drawing up the documents now.

Nope, I didn't express an opinion on the value of the proposed laws one way or the other. What I said is that it's odd that a bunch of conservatives would be advocating for more federal control over the states.

JB
07-04-2008, 06:45 PM
Nope, I didn't express an opinion on the value of the proposed laws one way or the other. What I said is that it's odd that a bunch of conservatives would be advocating for more federal control over the states.What would be odd is a conservative being against those policies.

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 07:12 PM
What would be odd is a conservative being against those policies.

Again, I made no comment on the relative ideological position of the individual items, but rather on the principle of federal intervention in state matters and the proliferation of federal power. Just take as an example #1. You're advocating additional federal control of local school systems and curriculum? Or take #2 or #3. Are you in favor of the federal government instructing state governments on how they can conduct their business?

However, since you seem intent on me commenting on value of these items, I will say that:

1. If we do #6 we need to take down a certain sign in on an island in NY, unless we wish to be world-class hypocrites
2. #7 is just silly in economic terms and would impact our economy far more than it would affect foreign investors
3. #8 seems simply vindictive -- all those smelly foreigners with their money can't buy our beaches
4. #9 would appear to be a violation of the first amendment which does indeed apply, at least, to permanent residents (the term in the law is "foreigners" and a bit abiguous)
5. #10 is pretty much the law, excepting the imprisonment and for those seeking political refuge. If it's not being carried out, another law won't make it so either

If we're hell bent on adopting a third world set of laws, why don't we just lift Saudi Arabia's. That way, anyone convicted of a capital offense (and there are many) by Tuesday is executed on Friday. And what's neater, we can all go watch. :D

AmPat
07-04-2008, 08:37 PM
The R's had control of the presidency for the last 8 years and control of both houses of Congress for approximately 6 of the last 8 and they've done what exactly to cut social program?

Does the term "filibuster" ring a bell? Remember the stalling techniques, the sreeching about the hateful Repugs stealing money from retired seniors, the incessant bitching about how Repukes didn't care about Seniors, school children starving at the school cafeterias, education can't survive, Blah, blah, blah.....:cool:

When Consevatives tried to bring it up it was immediately politicized, ridiculed, and struck down by the morons, approximately 99% of them in the DIM party. (appologies to the one sane Dim in the DIM sewer).:cool:

Cold Warrior
07-04-2008, 09:03 PM
Does the term "filibuster" ring a bell? Remember the stalling techniques, the sreeching about the hateful Repugs stealing money from retired seniors, the incessant bitching about how Repukes didn't care about Seniors, school children starving at the school cafeterias, education can't survive, Blah, blah, blah.....:cool:

When Consevatives tried to bring it up it was immediately politicized, ridiculed, and struck down by the morons, approximately 99% of them in the DIM party. (appologies to the one sane Dim in the DIM sewer).:cool:

That's the nature of the game. D's politicize stuff, R' politicize stuff. It's the way things work, the way things have always worked. Movement is most frequently achieved through compromise, rarely through bulldozers. If you're going to use that excuse, it has to be applied the other way as well during the periods (such as today) that the Dims don't have the requisite majority.

However, thanks to Georgie Porgie, the unadmitted compassionate coke addict (unlike Patrick Kennedy), we're going to find out what it's like to be bulldozed, as the Dims will likely have a fillibuster-proof majority come November.

Lager
07-04-2008, 10:49 PM
CW is right, fillibuster or not, the R's in the last few years haven't had much of a heart for cutting government. Back in the nineties, Newt and the gang took the contract for America right to the people. The argument now, unfortunately, isn't about whether or not there should be a nanny state, it's how big the nanny state is going to grow.

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 12:11 AM
It's all an illusion. While it looks like the government has grown massively, really it shrunk by 23.79%.





Not really.




Good advice. Maybe you should follow it.

Oh, and single moms can pay for their own damned education and babysitters. I thought you wanted to cut social spending.
Between the options of paying them to have more; or giving them 2 years of benefits, college costs and a babysitter, I vote for the second. Prepare them to support their kid(s), then kick them off the plantation. You'll have a lot fewer coming back if they have the ability to get a decent job. Of course, that just makes sense, which is why it's never done...

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 12:12 AM
Nope, I didn't express an opinion on the value of the proposed laws one way or the other. What I said is that it's odd that a bunch of conservatives would be advocating for more federal control over the states.

Perhaps you've missed the fact that the feds already control a lot of this...in the real world.

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 12:15 AM
That must be why the number of federal laws and regulations, state laws and regulations, and local laws and regulations have shrunk so dramatically over the last three decades.

Because so many people have made it clear to their elected representatives that they really want simpler and fewer laws? Yeah, I see that in the news every day... Nevertheless, the fact is that these laws would be simpler and plainer than the current regulations, and IF they were enacted, would supercede the old ones.

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 12:19 AM
CW is right, fillibuster or not, the R's in the last few years haven't had much of a heart for cutting government. Back in the nineties, Newt and the gang took the contract for America right to the people. The argument now, unfortunately, isn't about whether or not there should be a nanny state, it's how big the nanny state is going to grow.

It doesn't help that all the military funding comes complete with tons of social add-ons. Seems like Pres. Bush has vetoed a lot of it down. There is no doubt that it would be easier if the R's weren't scared to death of the "plantation owners...and residents."

FeebMaster
07-05-2008, 12:49 AM
Between the options of paying them to have more; or giving them 2 years of benefits, college costs and a babysitter, I vote for the second. Prepare them to support their kid(s), then kick them off the plantation. You'll have a lot fewer coming back if they have the ability to get a decent job. Of course, that just makes sense, which is why it's never done...


What makes sense is to let them work or starve on their own without government interference.

If you want to help out the downtrodden, by all means, do so. But do it out of your own pocket and not out of mine.

lacarnut
07-05-2008, 01:17 AM
What makes sense is to let them work or starve on their own without government interference.

If you want to help out the downtrodden, by all means, do so. But do it out of your own pocket and not out of mine.

You know, a good old 70 ish recession might get us out of this entitlement mentality. Either work or go hungry. Save for a rainy day. Quit charging shit like there is no tomorrow. I don't owe some lazy bastard a meal, a place to stay, walking around money, a cell phone or a used heap to ride around in while I am working.

AmPat
07-05-2008, 06:47 AM
That's the nature of the game. D's politicize stuff, R' politicize stuff. It's the way things work, the way things have always worked. Movement is most frequently achieved through compromise, rarely through bulldozers. If you're going to use that excuse, it has to be applied the other way as well during the periods (such as today) that the Dims don't have the requisite majority.

However, thanks to Georgie Porgie, the unadmitted compassionate coke addict (unlike Patrick Kennedy), we're going to find out what it's like to be bulldozed, as the Dims will likely have a fillibuster-proof majority come November.

The obvious here is you are correct. The difference is the DUms have Compromised ZERO. The Conservatives try and the DUms insist to have it all their way. If somebody has evidence to refute this, I will read it. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

AmPat
07-05-2008, 06:51 AM
CW is right, fillibuster or not, the R's in the last few years haven't had much of a heart for cutting government. Back in the nineties, Newt and the gang took the contract for America right to the people. The argument now, unfortunately, isn't about whether or not there should be a nanny state, it's how big the nanny state is going to grow.

You're right, let's give up.

Seriously, we need common sense in gov't and arrests made for deliberatey lying and misrepresenting facts. Remove lobbyists, etc, etc...

Total makeover. Let's start with the remnants of the real Republican Party.

Cold Warrior
07-05-2008, 08:47 AM
Perhaps you've missed the fact that the feds already control a lot of this...in the real world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "control," but if you mean the federal government can impose these restrictions legally under the constitution, I would question that premise regarding every one of them excepting #10. All of the others affect states' rights and are not under the perview of the federal government.

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 02:27 PM
What makes sense is to let them work or starve on their own without government interference.

If you want to help out the downtrodden, by all means, do so. But do it out of your own pocket and not out of mine.

You're already paying, Feeb. It's not like WE have any choice. If we're going to be forced to pay for it, as we are, at the very least they could do something intelligent with that money, like educate the welfare moms and get them jobs.

MrsSmith
07-05-2008, 02:37 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "control," but if you mean the federal government can impose these restrictions legally under the constitution, I would question that premise regarding every one of them excepting #10. All of the others affect states' rights and are not under the perview of the federal government.Yes, let us all pretend that none of these issues have been nor will be brought to the US Supreme Court. I thought we were doing "real life" here?

FeebMaster
07-05-2008, 02:53 PM
You're already paying, Feeb. It's not like WE have any choice. If we're going to be forced to pay for it, as we are, at the very least they could do something intelligent with that money, like educate the welfare moms and get them jobs.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I understand that I am paying. I would prefer not to be paying.

If you're going to go through all of the hassle of changing the laws so poor unfortunate welfare moms can go to school and get great jobs so they can buy their crap and flood the tax rolls with more sweet sweet tax money instead of being drains on society and buying crates of twinkies with their foodstamps, which is in itself going to be a massive fight against the liberal hordes crying for free handouts, why not just do it right?

If it's going to be an epic battle anyway, just fight to get rid of it. Maybe you won't win, but at least you won't look like a jackass when we end up with free babysitters and education for poor unfortunate welfare moms in addition to the current freebies they get.

Cold Warrior
07-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Yes, let us all pretend that none of these issues have been nor will be brought to the US Supreme Court. I thought we were doing "real life" here?

It's sort of hard to have discourse on this as you use terms and phrases that can be interpreted in multiple ways. My point is that the OP implies the federal government ("the US") should pass these laws, many of which are just plain silly, and which, excepting #10, would clearly constitute an infringeent on states rights. Now, does the federal government attempt to do that; of course, and in some cases they're successful. However, I really doubt that the feds could compell the states in regards to their education curriculum (#1), the language in which they do business (#2, #3), the nationality of their office holders (#4, #5), how they conduct their state-based welfare programs (#6), and with whom they do business (#7, #8). Of the remaining, #9 is clearly a violation of the first amendment while #10 is effectively already a federal law(s).

As to the Supreme Court hearing such cases, take #3 for example. In the late 90s they heard (or were considering hearing?) an Arizona case restricting official state business to Enlglish. But notice the difference. This was a state law that was being tested in the federal courts. It is certainly possible that states may pass many of the OP's list; however, for the federal government to do so would be unconstitutional.

It seems as if good old strict constructionist conservatives are perfectly willing to throw the constitution away in their fear of them smelly furigners!

BTW, I think the law (or amendment to the Arizona constitution) was overturned.

Odysseus
07-05-2008, 08:36 PM
This was sent by a friend in Oklahoma. It's one of those email things. Not sure if it's true, but if so, I think we should reciprocate with our neighbors to the South.
IF THE U.S. WOULD ONLY ENACT THESE LAWS...BUT, we've got too many bleeding hearts here that think we have to save the world. If they're here ILLEGALLY, they shouldn't have any rights at all! If we were in another country illegally, we certainly wouldn't have any rights.


1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Harsh, you say?.......
The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO

The only thing that I disagree with on these laws (which, BTW, are part of Mexico's constitution, along with provisions that deny most public offices at the federal level to naturalized citizens) are numbers 7 and 8, which punish the Mexican economy, rather than immigrants. I have no problem with people coming to the US, investing money in businesses and working (the overwelming majority of those who do so own small businesses). But, of course, Mexican citizenship is based on the same kinds of tribal orders as citizenship in 99% of the world's countries. You're a Mexican because you were born there, to Mexican parents, just are being born to French parents makes you French, or British parents makes you British. The US is one of the only nations in the world that allows immigrants to become full-fledged citizens, because American citizenship is supposed to be about adopting the idea of America, not the tribal characteristics.

Cold Warrior
07-05-2008, 08:55 PM
IF THE U.S. WOULD ONLY ENACT THESE LAWS...BUT, we've got too many bleeding hearts here that think we have to save the world. If they're here ILLEGALLY, they shouldn't have any rights at all! If we were in another country illegally, we certainly wouldn't have any rights....

Although I'm not particularly a bleeding heart and certainly have no desire to save the world, particularly since in around 30 or so years its fate won't matter to me, I'm at a loss to understand your association of the first nine of these "laws" with ILLEGAL aliens. It seems on #10 does that and it is already a law, in some form. One can certainly make the argument it should be strengthened (e.g., the imprisonment) or enforced. However, the rest simply refer to "foreigners," "non-citizens," or "non-residents," all of whom (like my girlfriend) may be perfectly legal here.

Again, it's extremely amusing how conservatives are perfectly willing to throw states' rights under the bus when it's an issue they agree with, but scream bloody murder ("STATES' RIGHTS, STATES' RIGHTS") when it's an issue with which they disagree (oh, say Roe v Wade). There's a word for that that's floating around this board a lot lately (see the Rush thread).

Zeus
07-06-2008, 12:07 AM
Although I'm not particularly a bleeding heart and certainly have no desire to save the world, particularly since in around 30 or so years its fate won't matter to me, I'm at a loss to understand your association of the first nine of these "laws" with ILLEGAL aliens. It seems on #10 does that and it is already a law, in some form. One can certainly make the argument it should be strengthened (e.g., the imprisonment) or enforced. However, the rest simply refer to "foreigners," "non-citizens," or "non-residents," all of whom (like my girlfriend) may be perfectly legal here.

Again, it's extremely amusing how conservatives are perfectly willing to throw states' rights under the bus when it's an issue they agree with, but scream bloody murder ("STATES' RIGHTS, STATES' RIGHTS") when it's an issue with which they disagree (oh, say Roe v Wade). There's a word for that that's floating around this board a lot lately (see the Rush thread).

Immigration Laws & regs is one of the few constitutionally mandated fed powers.. Sure I suppose the states could establish their own set of immigration laws but are still subject to federal law.

Cold Warrior
07-06-2008, 07:33 AM
Immigration Laws & regs is one of the few constitutionally mandated fed powers.. Sure I suppose the states could establish their own set of immigration laws but are still subject to federal law.

That's nice. And which of these are "immigration laws?" The language in which the state conducts business is an "immigration law?" A local school board's curriculum is an "immigration law?" Who can hold state or local office is an "immigration law?"

Face it. This is just a set of simplistic feel-good proposals that morons on the Right toss about without regard to their (1) constitutionality or their (2) impacts. It's fodder that political demigods and Former Fat Boy types can throw out to Billy Bob and Billy Jane to get them all hot about smelly foreigners stealing their cultural heritage. None of these (other than #10) will be ever be enacted at a federal level for the simple reason that they blatantly violate the 10th amendment, not to mention the 1st (#9) and possibly the 9th. However, what's more appalling is that so-called conservatives who value states' rights so much in principle are willing to give them up at the drop of a hat to "save the baaayybies" from those dirty "others."

noonwitch
07-07-2008, 08:54 AM
I think 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are all good ideas.

I don't have a problem with bilingual school programs, as long as they are open to all students. Learning a second language is a good thing for all kids-for some, the second language is english, is all.

The government needs some flexibility with language in order to get the job done, and to accomodate legal citizens who are learning english.

biccat
07-07-2008, 09:34 AM
Face it. This is just a set of simplistic feel-good proposals that morons on the Right toss about without regard to their constitutionality


1 There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
Bilingual programs that are intended only to benefit a certain group would infringe the 14th amendment and should be held unconstitutional. This is obviously a Federal concern.


2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
Congress has exclusive power over federal election procedures.


3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
Congress has the authority to set the standards for federal works.


4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.
Congress has exclusive power over immigration and naturalization, not states.


5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
The Federal Government has the power to regulate who may hold office at the federal level.


6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden
will be deported.
Federally regulated programs can be regulated by (surprise) the Federal government.


7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
Any commodity regulated by the Federal Government could be subject to this. Under the interstate commerce provision of the Constitution, foreign investers could have a significant impact and could therefore be regulated.


8. If foreigners come here and buy land... Options will be restricted.
Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
naturally born into this country.
Agreed, this is a right reserved to the states.


9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his
policies. These will lead to deportation.
First amendment problems, probably not a states rights issue.


10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
All assets will be taken from you.
Yup, immigration, Congress has plenary authority.

So out of all 10, only one is clearly a states rights issue. Many depend on whether you're talking about federal power or state power. But your assertion that these are all unconstitutional is absurd.

Cold Warrior
07-07-2008, 10:05 AM
Bilingual programs that are intended only to benefit a certain group would infringe the 14th amendment and should be held unconstitutional. This is obviously a Federal concern.

I believe these have been challenged on the 14th amendment in the past and such challenges have generally failed. However, you have access to Lexis/Nexis and could tell us.


Congress has exclusive power over federal election procedures.

Congress has the authority to set the standards for federal works.

The Federal Government has the power to regulate who may hold office at the federal level.

Federally regulated programs can be regulated by (surprise) the Federal government.

Any commodity regulated by the Federal Government could be subject to this. Under the interstate commerce provision of the Constitution, foreign investers could have a significant impact and could therefore be regulated.

Notice a pattern here. Where in the OP does it imply that we should/could assert these at the federal level? Also, what percentage of voting/offices/etc. are federal vs state?


Congress has exclusive power over immigration and naturalization, not states.

The issue was whether or non-citizens could vote; I think a permanent residents, for example, can currently vote now in a number of local and possibly state elections/referendums. I do not think the feds can do anything about that.


Agreed, this is a right reserved to the states.

First amendment problems, probably not a states rights issue.

Yup, immigration, Congress has plenary authority.

So out of all 10, only one is clearly a states rights issue. Many depend on whether you're talking about federal power or state power. But your assertion that these are all unconstitutional is absurd.

Clearly states do not have the right to set federal procedures and regulations. However, in general, the feds do not have the right to set the same for the states. That was clearly, for all but the dense, the intent of the post.

Moreover, I would reiterate, these are merely feel-good, Billy Bob-feeding proposals. Wouldn't it be nice if someone presented an objective analysis on the impacts of some of these, particularly the economic ones (#7, #8)?

Zeus
07-07-2008, 10:25 AM
I believe these have been challenged on the 14th amendment in the past and such challenges have generally failed. However, you have access to Lexis/Nexis and could tell us.



Notice a pattern here. Where in the OP does it imply that we should/could assert these at the federal level? Also, what percentage of voting/offices/etc. are federal vs state?



The issue was whether or non-citizens could vote; I think a permanent residents, for example, can currently vote now in a number of local and possibly state elections/referendums. I do not think the feds can do anything about that.



Clearly states do not have the right to set federal procedures and regulations. However, in general, the feds do not have the right to set the same for the states. That was clearly, for all but the dense, the intent of the post.

Moreover, I would reiterate, these are merely feel-good, Billy Bob-feeding proposals. Wouldn't it be nice if someone presented an objective analysis on the impacts of some of these, particularly the economic ones (#7, #8)?

So is it your contention the Federal Govt has no authority in establishing & enforcing immigration laws ?

biccat
07-07-2008, 10:37 AM
I believe these have been challenged on the 14th amendment in the past and such challenges have generally failed. However, you have access to Lexis/Nexis and could tell us.
A quick glance didn't turn up anything. But I'm pretty sure a legal challenge to current bilingual programs would fail. The right of non-English speaking children to an education trumps the equal protection issue.

Manditory bilingual programs would probably fail outright, based on a fairly liberal reading of Meyer v. State of Nebraska (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=262&invol=390).


Notice a pattern here. Where in the OP does it imply that we should/could assert these at the federal level? Also, what percentage of voting/offices/etc. are federal vs state?
Yes, but nowhere does the OP imply that this would apply to state positions. An assertion of Constitutional or Unconstitutional would depend on that fact. I qualified my answer, you didn't, implying that the statute would be unconstitutional, regardless of such a distinction.


The issue was whether or non-citizens could vote; I think a permanent residents, for example, can currently vote now in a number of local and possibly state elections/referendums. I do not think the feds can do anything about that.
Yeah, the states set their own standards for voting in local elections.


Clearly states do not have the right to set federal procedures and regulations. However, in general, the feds do not have the right to set the same for the states. That was clearly, for all but the dense, the intent of the post.
States do have the right to set procedures for conducting elections, determining voting districts, etc. Even in federal elections. The feds do have some power over the states as well, in that state elections cannot violate the US Constitution.


Moreover, I would reiterate, these are merely feel-good, Billy Bob-feeding proposals. Wouldn't it be nice if someone presented an objective analysis on the impacts of some of these, particularly the economic ones (#7, #8)?
Some are feel-good, some are not. #s 6, 4, and 10 make good economic and political sense. #s 7 and 8 are clearly stupid.

Obviously these proposals are based on the Mexican immigration policies, which are very strict and harmful towards illegal aliens.

Cold Warrior
07-07-2008, 10:41 AM
So is it your contention the Federal Govt has no authority in establishing & enforcing immigration laws ?

No, it's my contention that very few of these (other than #10) have anything to do with "immigration laws."

ConJinx
07-07-2008, 10:46 AM
What about the fact that on Mexico's southern border they have fed troops that violate all notions of human rights murder, rape, etc...then accuse the U.S. of the very same or worse, expect us to extradite our border agents for prosecution in situations that are clearly false.

Cold Warrior
07-07-2008, 10:58 AM
...
Some are feel-good, some are not. #s 6, 4, and 10 make good economic and political sense. #s 7 and 8 are clearly stupid.

Obviously these proposals are based on the Mexican immigration policies, which are very strict and harmful towards illegal aliens.

Aren't #4 (on the federal level) and #10 (albeit without the requisite imprisonment and with exemptions for political refugees) already the law? If so, isn't this just a matter of enforcement?

As far as #6 goes, let's rip down that sign in NY harbor then...



Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door

biccat
07-07-2008, 11:04 AM
Aren't #4 (on the federal level) and #10 (albeit without the requisite imprisonment and with exemptions for political refugees) already the law? If so, isn't this just a matter of enforcement?
Of course. That's the problem with a lot of the issues we face. Instead of passing more laws, enforce the ones we have.

Gun Control
Immigration
"Hate Crime" laws
Copyright infringement

The list is long.


As far as #6 goes, let's rip down that sign in NY harbor then...
Anyone in this country should not be dependant on government aid to survive. While states should provide a safety net, it shouldn't be lifetime benefits. The same goes for those who enter our country, you should be willing to work and support yourself and your family. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

Zeus
07-07-2008, 11:05 AM
No, it's my contention that very few of these (other than #10) have anything to do with "immigration laws."

Ah I see. I wasn't addressing the OP in particular but the premise in general.