Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. #51  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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 ?
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Senior Member ConJinx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    310
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    ...
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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.
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •