Proof of Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The 'anti-immigration' people are JUST asking for federal law to be enforced. Not anti-immigration. PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have ZERO ISSUE with expanded quotas, guest-workers, family reunification, High-skills visas etc. I have a hard time with a country in which it is considered intolerable, racist, ignorant, xenophobic to enforce our actual laws on the books

Ok, let's start here. I can agree with pretty much all of this. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Petulance ain't gonna stop the flow of illegal workers. Nor will lachrymose stories of suffering ranchers. Nor will cutting [federal?] fund to "sanctuary cities."

If you don't want folks to come to the US, you have to eliminate the job opportunities. To do that, you need punitive federal legislation. Nothing else will make a difference.

And right now, there's no political will in Congress to do so from either party.

Which is why I support AZ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 'anti-immigration' people are JUST asking for federal law to be enforced. Not anti-immigration. PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have ZERO ISSUE with expanded quotas, guest-workers, family reunification, High-skills visas etc. I have a hard time with a country in which it is considered intolerable, racist, ignorant, xenophobic to enforce our actual laws on the books

Ok, let's start here. I can agree with pretty much all of this. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Petulance ain't gonna stop the flow of illegal workers. Nor will lachrymose stories of suffering ranchers. Nor will cutting [federal?] fund to "sanctuary cities."

If you don't want folks to come to the US, you have to eliminate the job opportunities. To do that, you need punitive federal legislation. Nothing else will make a difference.

And right now, there's no political will in Congress to do so from either party.

Which is why I support AZ.

Well as long as Arizona is going to do its own enforcement of fedral law, it could have just gone after employers like you wish the feds would. This would avoid the civil liberties issue and attack the problem head-on. Now ask yourself why they didn't do that instead?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you agree that the current citizens of this country should get to debate whether or not they want immigration, and that the majority rules, democracy-style? Or is this an issue on which the people cannot be trusted?

On that point it is fair to ask, do you agree that majority rules? Because it is the position of Senate Republicans that the majority does not rule. Rather, a super-majority of three-fifths is required, allowing a minority to stop legislation. If immigration reform could be passed with a simple majority, we would have reform this year.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed when the GOP changed the Senate rules. Way back when I was in high school I am pretty sure 60 senate votes were required to bring a bill to the floor? And I am equally sure that the Dems used this in the Bush administration to have a voice in the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 'anti-immigration' people are JUST asking for federal law to be enforced. Not anti-immigration. PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have ZERO ISSUE with expanded quotas, guest-workers, family reunification, High-skills visas etc. I have a hard time with a country in which it is considered intolerable, racist, ignorant, xenophobic to enforce our actual laws on the books

Ok, let's start here. I can agree with pretty much all of this. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Petulance ain't gonna stop the flow of illegal workers. Nor will lachrymose stories of suffering ranchers. Nor will cutting [federal?] fund to "sanctuary cities."

If you don't want folks to come to the US, you have to eliminate the job opportunities. To do that, you need punitive federal legislation. Nothing else will make a difference.

And right now, there's no political will in Congress to do so from either party.

Which is why I support AZ.

Well as long as Arizona is going to do its own enforcement of fedral law, it could have just gone after employers like you wish the feds would. This would avoid the civil liberties issue and attack the problem head-on. Now ask yourself why they didn't do that instead?

Google the Legal Arizona Workers Act PP - and then look at your question. Addressing the problem head on was not sufficient apparently.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, maybe I missed when the GOP changed the Senate rules. Way back when I was in high school I am pretty sure 60 senate votes were required to bring a bill to the floor? And I am equally sure that the Dems used this in the Bush administration to have a voice in the debate.

The issue is not whether the filibuster is right or wrong. The earlier poster suggested that majority rule was important. I merely asked if that view extended to the Senate, where the principle is decidedly not followed. That poster, like you, tried to avoid the topic. Typical.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, maybe I missed when the GOP changed the Senate rules. Way back when I was in high school I am pretty sure 60 senate votes were required to bring a bill to the floor? And I am equally sure that the Dems used this in the Bush administration to have a voice in the debate.

The issue is not whether the filibuster is right or wrong. The earlier poster suggested that majority rule was important. I merely asked if that view extended to the Senate, where the principle is decidedly not followed. That poster, like you, tried to avoid the topic. Typical.

Your words

Because it is the position of Senate Republicans that the majority does not rule.

I am sure impartial observers would interpret this as the GOP trying to deny majority rule - NOT the Senate as you state above. Touche! And who was deflecting?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Your words

Because it is the position of Senate Republicans that the majority does not rule.

I am sure impartial observers would interpret this as the GOP trying to deny majority rule - NOT the Senate as you state above. Touche! And who was deflecting?

Let me try to make this simple enough that even you can understand:

1) poster A says majority rule is important
2) I ask, does that include the Senate where the Republicans are not allowing majority rule
3) You say that Democrats have used the filibuster as well
4) I say that has nothing to do with whether poster A thinks majority rule should extend to the Senate (what the Democrats did in the past cannot change what is happening now)
5) None of the above is comprehensible to you for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

If you want to debate the filibuster, go find someone else to debate it with. All I wanted to know is whether the principle of majority rule should extend to the Senate. Neither you nor poster A can seem to manage an answer.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your words

Because it is the position of Senate Republicans that the majority does not rule.

I am sure impartial observers would interpret this as the GOP trying to deny majority rule - NOT the Senate as you state above. Touche! And who was deflecting?

Let me try to make this simple enough that even you can understand:

1) poster A says majority rule is important
2) I ask, does that include the Senate where the Republicans are not allowing majority rule
3) You say that Democrats have used the filibuster as well
4) I say that has nothing to do with whether poster A thinks majority rule should extend to the Senate (what the Democrats did in the past cannot change what is happening now)
5) None of the above is comprehensible to you for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

If you want to debate the filibuster, go find someone else to debate it with. All I wanted to know is whether the principle of majority rule should extend to the Senate. Neither you nor poster A can seem to manage an answer.

We are a republic - not a democracy. We elect people to represent us, and their votes and their rules determine our laws, etc. Many would term this a representative democracy. And I for one think poster A will be right, and November will show that the people do not believe their representatives represented them and they will vote them out. Just sayin... (for the poor, stupid creature you presume I am...)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
We are a republic - not a democracy. We elect people to represent us, and their votes and their rules determine our laws, etc. Many would term this a representative democracy. And I for one think poster A will be right, and November will show that the people do not believe their representatives represented them and they will vote them out. Just sayin... (for the poor, stupid creature you presume I am...)

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That addresses the question just as accurately as your response. Just sayin... (and, I don't know whether you are stupid, but you have demonstrated quite effectively that you cannot answer a simple question).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 'anti-immigration' people are JUST asking for federal law to be enforced. Not anti-immigration. PRO LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I have ZERO ISSUE with expanded quotas, guest-workers, family reunification, High-skills visas etc. I have a hard time with a country in which it is considered intolerable, racist, ignorant, xenophobic to enforce our actual laws on the books

Ok, let's start here. I can agree with pretty much all of this. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Petulance ain't gonna stop the flow of illegal workers. Nor will lachrymose stories of suffering ranchers. Nor will cutting [federal?] fund to "sanctuary cities."

If you don't want folks to come to the US, you have to eliminate the job opportunities. To do that, you need punitive federal legislation. Nothing else will make a difference.

And right now, there's no political will in Congress to do so from either party.

Which is why I support AZ.

Well as long as Arizona is going to do its own enforcement of fedral law, it could have just gone after employers like you wish the feds would. This would avoid the civil liberties issue and attack the problem head-on. Now ask yourself why they didn't do that instead?

As far as I know states have jurisdiction over their police forces, but not over employer checks/raids. That is ICE, no? Appears that AZ is doing as much as they can to support federal law.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We are a republic - not a democracy. We elect people to represent us, and their votes and their rules determine our laws, etc. Many would term this a representative democracy. And I for one think poster A will be right, and November will show that the people do not believe their representatives represented them and they will vote them out. Just sayin... (for the poor, stupid creature you presume I am...)

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That addresses the question just as accurately as your response. Just sayin... (and, I don't know whether you are stupid, but you have demonstrated quite effectively that you cannot answer a simple question).

James Madison kept is simple, and I agree with him:

Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
James Madison kept is simple, and I agree with him:

Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

You could keep it simpler still and just say that you don't agree with majority rule. That's fine. I believe the same thing. Protection of minority rights is one of the most important issues to me. Why you simply can't bring yourself to say this is beyond me. But, of course, you can't scream how you want majority rule when it works for you and quote James Madison when it does doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We are a republic - not a democracy. We elect people to represent us, and their votes and their rules determine our laws, etc. Many would term this a representative democracy. And I for one think poster A will be right, and November will show that the people do not believe their representatives represented them and they will vote them out. Just sayin... (for the poor, stupid creature you presume I am...)

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That addresses the question just as accurately as your response. Just sayin... (and, I don't know whether you are stupid, but you have demonstrated quite effectively that you cannot answer a simple question).

James Madison kept is simple, and I agree with him:

Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

I could not agree more with Publius that our institutions must protect against the tyranny of the majority. Even if they are Mexican-Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:

If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't.

The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem.

Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping.

You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something."

Thank you! Couldn't have summed it up any better.

[Anonymous]

I'm the pp, and I can't believe how many here have emphasized that immigrants are BREAKING THE LAW. What about all of the American citizens BREAKING THE LAW by hiring them? Why are we only focused on one group of lawbreakers?