Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration Law.

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

I think there would be a huge burden on hispanics to carry papers and they'd be asked for them much like the Jews were asked for theirs in Nazi Germany.

Congress' job isn't to represent Citizens, but Persons, and Persons are counted in the Census and accounted for when it comes to representatives and electoral votes.

FWIW

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

Well, there's a fundamental difference. I think it's ludicrous to have open international borders. How do you reconcile inspecting their baggage, but not who they are? In your opinion, you can be a fugitive from Ireland who just bombed a bunch of churches, but if you don't have contraband in your knapsack it's ok to come live in my neighborhood?

Protecting citizens doesn't start on your street corner. It starts at the borders and works its way down to the cop walking a beat in your neighborhood. That's why we have these laws in the first place. If the majority of America thinks it's for the best to repeal them, fine. But I don't think you'll get that many people thinking that way.

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

Respectfully, I call B.S. It's up to every American to carry identification. When was the last time you got pulled over, said "sorry, Officer, carrying a license in a huge burden I don't want to deal with?" and get away with it? And it wasn't just the Jews who were asked for their papers--it was the Jews who were sent to concentration camp if their papers said "Jewish". If your papers said "German, from Dusseldorf", you went on your way.
I'm not a lawyer and will defer to better understanding here, but I was under the impression that Section 1 of 14th Amendment stated that "all persons subject to the jurisdiction (of the US)... are citizens of the US and the state they reside." Persons here legally are citizens, or have visas. My green-card-carrying grandmother can't vote, but she's represented. A convicted felon cannot vote, but is represented. Per Section 2, an "Indian not taxed" (i.e., someone who was still a member of the reservation Nation they were affiliated with--and who I'm making the modern-day analogy of an illegal to) was not represented by Congress.

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...nate-democrats-set-to-unveil-immigration-plan

BTW, I haven't seen the plan or know what it's about, but at least something's being discussed.

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

I'm not aware of any law that requires anyone to carry identification or any other kinds of papers, in general. Driving? Sure, you need a license. Walking on the street? Oops, I forgot my wallet, now I gotta go to jail? I don't think so.

How do I reconcile searching EVERYONE entering the country? For one, people are welcome here but infested fruits and vegetables or sick animals aren't. Or any other kind of contraband (guns, drugs, whatever). Plus you can count the people who enter and leave.

As far as the irish fugitive, we have extradition agreements. We'd arrest the guy and send him to face trial.

As far as majority rules - we're not a democracy, nor should we be. We are a republic with protections against a tyrannical majority. I submit that hassling people because their skin is brown is tyrannical.

More in my answer to your 2nd post.

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

So it is CITIZENSHIP that the government should regulate, and this is consistent with my position. Which is that people should be free to come and go, but we can set the bar really high or establish pretty much any rules we want when it comes to allowing people to become citizens.

A PERSON is someone who's here who's not a citizen. Like a citizen of france who's here visiting (on a visa, whatever). What makes the status of a Person special is the protection of our laws. You can't go out and murder that french person and get away with it - he is protected against that crime by our laws just as a citizen is. Similarly, if the french person commits murder, he is entitled to a trial by jury, speedy trial, due process, etc.

I think you misquote the 14th amendment. It actually reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So as far as I'm concerned, Mexicans who are here are just that, Mexicans (citizens of Mexico) - they are not BORN here. As far as our laws are concerned, they are entitled to equal protection under the law. Singling out a class of person (or citizen) for unfair treatment is egregious.

However, if a pregnant Mexican woman has her child born here, the child is a citizen and may be a Mexican citizen (dual citizenship) as well. The latter being determined by Mexico's laws regarding citizenship. And there's the rub. If you insist that people here without visas must be sent back, what are you going to do with their children who are citizens?

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

What about my freeeeeeedom to not carry id?

barfo

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

What happens if a single American mom with a child commits a crime. Does she get leniency b/c the child won't have a mom?

 

Re: Gavin Newsom bans San Francisco Workes to travel to Arizona b/c of Immigration La

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6e6b338d2625c3ba01797b878d0018e9.41&show_article=1

Immigration debate shakes US to the core

From the deck of New York Harbor's tour boat the Statue of Liberty looks as welcoming today as when greeting new immigrants a century ago.
But the soaring figure and even loftier inscription -- "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- gets a wry look from passengers Yeni Benitez and Felipe Ramirez.

Benitez, freshly immigrated from Colombia, and her husband Ramirez know first hand the tensions roiling America in the wake of Arizona's tough new law against illegal immigration.

Ramirez, 28, was already a US citizen but says it took him almost a year and "a hundred layers of bureaucracy" to get his wife into the country, where she finally arrived Tuesday at New York's LaGuardia Airport.

"The irony of that statue," he said, looking over the choppy harbor below the skyscrapers of Manhattan, "is that those poor and huddled masses are exactly the people who they don't want to come."

More at the link