Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Jobs Americans Won't Do: Voodoo Economics from the White House.
1 posted on 01/08/2004 1:10:02 PM PST by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
23 Nevada 280.00
4
70.00
114
2.46
60.00
3

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

2 posted on 01/08/2004 1:10:48 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Freepers post from sun to sun, but a fundraiser bot's work is never done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"No, our immigration laws don't work or make us proud. You know why? Because we don't make an effort to enforce them. It's like telling your kid to clean his room, having him watch TV instead, and then having him look you in the eye and say, "you know the system we're using to get my room cleaned up just isn't working"."

Stop right there...NUFF SAID!!
Thanks, IA

3 posted on 01/08/2004 1:12:10 PM PST by international american (support our troops.........revoke Hillary's visa!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
What, if anything, do you like that W has done? I do notice you sure carp about him a lot. Who did you vote for in 2000?
4 posted on 01/08/2004 1:13:05 PM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
I agree with the President's proposal. Our current immigration laws are unenforceable, unworkable, unrealistic and unreasonable. The President's proposal takes a positive first step in the direction of recognizing the reality that American businesses rely heavily on immigrant labor, while being fair to those laborers. It does not go as far as the Left-Wing wants in granting citizenship to illegal aliens. And it does not go as far as the right wingers want in deporting them all. But it is realistic, enforceable, workable and reasonable.
6 posted on 01/08/2004 1:16:35 PM PST by Guyin4Os (My name says Guyin40s but now I have an exotic, daring, new nickname..... Guyin50s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Bump.
7 posted on 01/08/2004 1:17:04 PM PST by Bernard Marx ("Do what you are afraid to do." Anonymous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Do you run the RightWingNews blog?
8 posted on 01/08/2004 1:17:41 PM PST by BunnySlippers (Help Bring Colly-fornia Back ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
bttt
11 posted on 01/08/2004 1:22:29 PM PST by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Actually there WAS one thing more sickening than Bush's immigration proposal....listening to NeoCon Kool-Aide drinkers like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved telling us how brilliant it is, and ridiculing those of us who'd like to see existing law enforced. This story is a long way from over, and still a long way from November.
15 posted on 01/08/2004 1:31:56 PM PST by Delta-Tango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
I guess the problem for me is that it just creates a new type of non-citizen. There will still be millions that operate as they do now (that will ignore all these laws being proposed) and some which will move over into this new mode. Since they do not enforce the existing laws, what makes anyone think that the immigrants will follow or the government enforce, these new requirements.

I guess we really, really mean it this time.
19 posted on 01/08/2004 1:37:58 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"Employers must not hire undocumented aliens or temporary workers whose legal status has expired. They must report to the government the temporary workers they hire and who leave their employ so that we can keep track of people in the program and better enforce our immigration laws. There must be strong workplace enforcement with tough penalties for anyone -- for any employer violating these laws."

...and that question is, "why can't we go ahead and do that NOW"? If we did this today, most of the people who are here illegally would go home because they couldn't find jobs. So why do we have to wait until after we've made all these illegals who don't respect our laws into citizens to do this?

bump for a truism so simple, you weep at the knowledge that some continue to overlook it.

21 posted on 01/08/2004 1:43:53 PM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
The government has no trouble enforcing so called laws against posting the Ten Commandments on government property. I'd like to see an illegal alien try that!
29 posted on 01/08/2004 1:53:57 PM PST by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Here, then, are a few examples of how knowledge of our constitutional past can alert the mind and imagination to new possibilities. Revisiting the historical record and entering the outlook of the Framers can be a source of inspiration. We may not want to return to the prescriptions of the Framers in every detail, but awareness of their thinking is a prerequisite for revising their ideas via the amendment process. Without it we do not even know what the Constitution was and is.

Many will be surprised to learn that the Constitution allows the states potentially limitless powers, known as powers of police, that, although recognized by the early courts as wholly immune from federal interference, are now usurped with abandon by the federal government. Considered a direct attribute of sovereignty, these powers include the authority to make all laws within a state’s territory for the protection of public order, safety, health, welfare, and morals. Included are laws prohibiting or regulating murder, violence, fraud, obscenity, intoxicants, narcotics—the list is potentially endless.

Chief Justice John Marshall, though a renowned champion of strong national governance, declared in several landmark decisions that the general government had no jurisdiction over such matters except where authorized by an explicit grant of power, such as the power to punish counterfeiting given in article 1, section 8. Yet today the general government routinely asserts its dominance over health, education, welfare, the environment, public safety, criminal justice, and other matters that, constitutionally, are police powers belonging exclusively to the states.

A second example concerns immigration. In Federalist No. 2, Hamilton cites as essential supports for a union of the states “that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, [and] very similar in their manners and customs.”

Today the federal government is failing to slow the flood of immigrants who exhibit little or no interest in making America’s traditional institutions and culture their own.

As concern over immigration mounts, most Americans are unaware that, under the Constitution of the Framers, the states enjoyed extensive authority to regulate immigration into their territory.

In the 1849 Passenger Cases a divided Supreme Court split four-to-four on where the power to regulate immigration lies. The division, however, was not over whether the states could regulate immigration but whether the federal government also could do so.

Even the four justices who did support a federal role went to great lengths to stress that no power of the federal government could compel the states to admit undesirable aliens, such as, in the delicate formulation of Justice Grier, “lunatics, idiots, criminals, or paupers.”

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Taney and three other justices insisted that the regulation of immigration, being a police power, was a matter to be addressed solely by the states. As Justice Woodbury explained, “it is for the State . . . to decide on what is sufficient cause for . . . [excluding aliens],—whether . . . sickness or crime . . . , danger of pauperism, danger to health, danger to morals, danger to property, danger to public principles by revolutions or change of government, or danger to religion.”

Yet today the federal government controls all aspects of immigration. Federal judges routinely deny the states any means either of controlling the admission of aliens into their territory or of protecting their citizens from resulting tax burdens or other ill effects.

Turning to the third and final example, perhaps no other regulations of the federal government are more harshly administered than those concerning the use of land.

What many Americans, including members of Congress, don’t know is that the Framers intended that the states, not the general government, would possess ultimate control over all land within their territory. To assure that this always would be so, the Framers inserted in the Constitution a requirement that the general government obtain permission from the state legislature before purchasing any property within a state to be used for federal purposes.

Article 1, section 8, clause 17, which gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, allows it “to exercise like Authority over all Places [and here are the significant words] purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

Why this was done is spelled out explicitly in a few brief paragraphs of Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention. The relevant passage is as follows: On the clause

[2:510; Madison, 5 Sept.]

“to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.

Mr Gerry contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government—

Mr. King thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would [and here are the key words] move to insert after the word “purchased” the words “by the consent of the Legislature of the State” This would certainly make the power safe.

Mr. Govr Morris 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con:. . . . [Emphases added]

That is the entire record of the origins of this provision. So that the states would not be intimidated "into an undue obedience to the general government," the latter was made dependent on the states for the acquisition of property in their territory.

For more than eighty years, when the general government wanted to build a fort or a lighthouse or a post office, Congress would pass a statute requesting that the appropriate state legislature cede land to the general government for the purpose. The state legislature, at its discretion, would approve, and, if suitable property was not available on the open market, the legislature would use its reserved power of eminent domain on behalf of Congress, the latter having no such power.

But then in 1875 the Supreme Court's decision in Kohl v. U.S. literally inverted the previously existing relation of the two levels of government concerning land use.

For the Court, Justice Strong wrote:

The powers vested by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States. These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy-yards and light-houses[, etc.] . . . If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of property-holders to sell, or by the action of a State prohibiting a sale to the Federal government, the constitutional grants of power may be rendered nugatory, and the government is dependent for its practical existence upon the will of a State . . . . This cannot be. [Emphasis added.]

The Court completely ignored that this dependence of the general government on the states was precisely what the Framers had intended.

Strong went on to argue that, as the states derive the power of eminent domain from their sovereignty, the general government should have the power as well, since it “is as sovereign within its sphere as the States are within theirs.” This last inference is particularly disingenuous. For part of the states’ retained sphere of sovereignty was the ultimate control of all land within their borders except for any that had been ceded. It is impossible to give ultimate control over state territory to the federal government and still to leave ultimate control with the states. Recognizing that this power could not reside in two places and believing that to put it in the general government would make hash of the states’ reserved powers, the Framers made a conscious decision to leave eminent domain where it had been—with the states. In its ruling in Kohl, the Supreme Court brazenly flouted this explicit intention of the Framers.

Soon the Framers' worst fears were realized. Over the next 21 years, the previous sovereignty of the states was obliterated root and branch. The following summary of the Supreme Court’s 1896 ruling in Chappell v. United States, taken from FindLaw, says all we need to know:

The fact that land included in a federal reservoir project is owned by a state, or that its taking may impair the state’s tax revenue, or that the reservoir will obliterate part of the state’s boundary and interfere with the state’s own project for water development and conservation, constitutes no barrier to the condemnation of the land by the United States. [Emphases added.]

Here, then, are three examples of far-reaching changes that have been inflicted unlawfully on our nation’s constitutional practice. Many others could be cited. What is important is that these changes have all but destroyed the federalism and the government of checks and balances that the Constitution was meant to guarantee.

How has it come to this? The most obvious culprit has been the Supreme Court. Hamilton, in Federalist 78, wrote that of the three branches the judiciary would “always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” because it was “to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Yet if the Court’s incredible ruling in Kohl is not an example of will rather than judgment, I do not know what would be. Will may be the least of it; the murder of federalism with malice aforethought might be a more apt description.

How might such judicial activism be discouraged or its effects minimized? In keeping with the judiciary’s responsibility to exercise judgment, not will, I think the Court itself might do well to adopt as a rule of jurisprudence that, in matters of constitutional interpretation, older precedents be given more weight than recent ones in the absence of compelling evidence that the former were in error. This rule would be the converse of that governing interpretation of statutes, which holds that, where laws are in conflict, the most recent act of the legislature is controlling.

But the courts are not entirely to blame. Ours was to be a government of checks and balances, in which all three branches were to protect the Constitution by jealously guarding against abuses by the others. But, with few exceptions, the intended competition among the branches and levels of government has broken down.

As a way for Congress to reassert its duty to the Constitution, I proposed several years ago that it might establish committees (or one joint committee) on delegated powers, with responsibility for determining the constitutionality of proposed legislation before it would be allowed to go to the floor.

A similar purpose might be served in the executive branch by the appointment of a constitutional advisor to the president. Significantly, the mechanism by which the president can promote a revival of effective constitutionalism is already present in his veto power. While the Constitution provides that the president may object to a measure for any reason, I think it is significant that the first six presidents—from Washington through Quincy Adams—used the power exclusively to register constitutional objections. And not once during all of those years was a presidential veto overridden by Congress. In our time, it might be helpful if the president, in future veto messages, would formally distinguish between objections of a constitutional nature and those of a prudential nature.

39 posted on 01/08/2004 2:05:08 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Islam .......it's worse than even the Muslims thought it was !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
President Bush is turning out to be a country club, Rockefeller Republican. He has done well on the tax cut and the war on terror. That's it. He hasn't stood behind the federal bench nominees because he is only giving lip service to the we conservatives. He doesn't want a conservative bench anymore than does his pal Ted Kennedy.
The President has shown his colors on the immigration front. He has put himself into the came catagory as the nine dwarfs from the Democrat party seeking their party's nomination. What a shameful fraud he has become. He is Nelson Rockefeller with a Texas drawl.
47 posted on 01/08/2004 2:19:34 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
GWB to USA: "Read my lips. No more illegals."
54 posted on 01/08/2004 2:28:53 PM PST by Visalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
I wonder how we find the funding to enforce our current immigration laws? How much would cost to protect the thousand of miles of boarders between Canada and Mexico and all of our coastline?

I'm also curious as to how the American farming industry would recover from the major wage increases it would face when it had to pay average citizens higher wages plus benefits. Then of course I'm hoping someone could explain to me what would prevent the average consumer from turning away from expensive American produce when they could just purchase produce grown from some other country that would cost 1/3 to 1/2 less than the American grown produce????
57 posted on 01/08/2004 2:31:20 PM PST by Tempest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Tom Tancredo IN ACTION !

Tom Tancredo is America's  "Numero Uno Point Man ! " in Congress on Illegal Immigration !

And a few of those hard working mexicans just working their fingers to the bone

And a super industrious car mechanic hard at it fixing a broken fan belt i bet !


58 posted on 01/08/2004 2:31:49 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Immigrants must adapt not Americans....And illegals must leave and start adapting legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"Some of the jobs being generated in America's growing economy are jobs American citizens are not filling."

Usually, with capitalism, the more dangerous, hard-to-fill and "undesirable" a job is, the more it pays. If no one here wants to dig ditches, then eventually people who need ditches dug, would pay premium wages...or just do it themselves.

With the fact that these illegals escape to Mexico for a month or so out of the year to escape paying income taxes, is proof enough they are looking for an easy dollar and could give a hoot less about America.

Now, many of the illegals are working at high paying jobs in construction, etc. You can't tell me that if there was an job opening in construction that there isn't an American anywhere who would fill it. The jobs would all get filled, IF the employer would make it worth their while...after all, minimum wage is better than no wage at all.
61 posted on 01/08/2004 2:32:52 PM PST by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Now you understand!

Bush will deal with the illegals and those who fail to register, HARSHLY.

After the enactment of this policy, any remaining illegals will be considered to represent a potential security threat to our great nation.

Here's the plan, but remember, Bush inherited this mess, so while it isn't perfect, it is a great beginning. Follow along:

1. Provide a means for those aliens already working in legitimate jobs for American companies or private families, and who truly deserve an American future, to properly obey and respect our laws, and let us also be kind to their families too. These are the high-profile sympathy cases that could destroy the GOP presidency if lumped in with the worst of the aliens. These hard luck stories will otherwise fill the airwaves, and many GOP and independent voters will feel the legitimate pain and suffering of such refugees. Call them the "Elians";
2. Provide a more efficient means for the next wave of good people to apply legitimately for access before they too become illegals. Call them the "Pre-emptives";
3. Bear down HARD on the remaining illegals, and begin to treat them as that: ILLEGAL. Without remorse and without shame, get rid of them. Call them the "Osamas". For the first time, given the cover of a legitimate and efficient access pathway, THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.

So, keep the Elians, work with the Pre-Emptives, and dump the Osamas.

Come now, Freepers, you can get there, if you try.
62 posted on 01/08/2004 2:33:21 PM PST by Stallone (Warrior Freepers Rule The Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
This needs to be hit hard!

Calls and Fax's to our representatives need to be made, but that is not enough.

This is an election year!
I strongly encourage everyone who wants to see this travesty fail to get involved with the formal party structure.

The party depends on it's grassroots organizations.
Most states will be having their county precinct meetings very soon.
If you attend you can submit and vote on items for the party platform.
Attendance may also make you eligible to attend the state party convention, where you get to vote on what stays in the platform.

You see where I am headed here?

The national platform is compiled from the state platforms.
If enough state platforms contain a strong plank against this "amnesty" by that or any other name, the national platform should do the same.
If we can get that plank passed conservatives in congress will have to take note of it, which should insure certain defeat for any amnesty bill.

We must become more active in the party structure in order to move it back toward honest conservatism. This amnesty is not honest, of conservative!

I am tired of being taken for granted, I feel like I am being given a choice between a broken arm and a broken leg, with the party telling me I have to support them no matter what they do in order to avoid two broken legs later!

And yes, I am attending my local republican party precinct meeting tonight.
71 posted on 01/08/2004 2:47:51 PM PST by Richard-SIA (Nuke the U.N!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Illegal, what does it mean....to me it means Illegal, to Bush and friends it means something else.....I voted for George and likely will again but this is about as bad as it gets.....Illegal is illegal.
78 posted on 01/08/2004 2:51:28 PM PST by JamesA (Stand up, stand together or die as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson