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

Skip to comments.

'If' (when) Arnold signs SB1160 into law, What will the Republican voter response/reaction be?
Save Our State ^

Posted on 06/06/2004 3:32:59 PM PDT by MindFire

        Cedillo Amends SB-1160 Threatens National Security, Promotes Fraud

SB-1160 Referred to Senate Transportation Committee Reported by Senate on June 3, 2004

If California, and other states pass laws giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens anyone will be able to get one, including Osama Bin-Ladin. If Cedillo-Schwarzenegger's SB-1160 is enacted into law, terrorists will be able to legally apply for a driver's license. This is an immediate repercussion of supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Arnold SB-1160 Univision Interview

SB-1160 IS A FRAUD AND PRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

SB-1160 removes the Department of Justice from the process of verification. SB-1160 removes current law requirements that to hold a California driver's license that a person be a US Citizen, or Resident Immigrant and allows an applicant that is an illegal alien to submit a matricula consular ID, or other document from a foreign government.

The Matricula Consular ID card can be purchased on the streets and the California DMV has no way to verify any documentation with the Mexican government. Mexico has stated they will not share any data or information regarding illegal aliens living in this country. That was the purpose of the Matricula Consular card.

The applicant for drivers license will be submitting ID documents issued by nations that will not verify the authenticity of that very document. That ID document therefore becomes totally meaningless. The greater problem becomes that anyone can purchase a Matricula Consular card to establish a new ID, which the applicant then can present a "valid" document issued by a foreign government to the California DMV. A person can open a bank account, or create multiple identities. This can in turn lead to voter fraud, banking fraud, among many other forms of fraud.

SB-1160 provides a provision for the fingerprinting of applicants. This provision is useless. As previously stated, Mexico has stated they will not share any data or information regarding illegal aliens living in our country. How do we know who the individuals are that may be entering this nation, if using a Matricula Consular card? We don't know and can't possibly know unless we are receiving information from a foreign security service that the US has long shared information with such as England's MI-5 or MI-6, Scotland Yard, or Israel's Mossad. With SB-1160 prohibiting the Department of Justice from sharing information with the Federal Government, the State of California has no way to know who may be attempting to enter the US utilizing a phony identification. Without access to foreign government's databanks, or without having arrested, and detained an individual and collecting their fingerprints personally, we have no way to identify an individual that may be a terrorist. Add to that very fact, the provision in this bill prohibiting the DMV or Department of Justice from reporting any illegal aliens to the appropriate Federal Department, or Agency, and the notion that SB-1160 will require background checks to protect US National Security is therefore, a complete fraud, and lie to the people of California and the United States.

SB-1160 claims to not allow a person to vote, but motor voter will still be in effect. State law cannot supercede Federal Law. In fact, SB-1160 may indeed present a number of provisions that may also be in contradiction of Federal Law.

SB-1160 has provided that an applicant can present a EIN/tax ID number in lieu of the SSN. SB-1160 has included a penalty of perjury clause where the applicant states they have applied for legal residency, or will apply for legal residency, though the penalty of perjury is moot as the illegal alien has already broken the law by violating US sovereignty and immigration laws in the first place.

Numerous illegal aliens are already in violation of that very law regarding voting, and under that same penalty of perjury. SB-1160 does not allow our immigration laws to be enforced by prohibiting the Department of Justice to report immigration law violaters to the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Departments or Agencies, with the exceptions being purchase of a firearm, explosive, or as part of a drug deal.

However, entering the US without federal government permission is a violation of law, too. Under SB-1160 illegal immigration is condoned, and sponsored by Members of the California State Legislature and Governor of California.

SB-1160 allows for a person to be sponsored by a Citizen of the United States that has a valid CA DL. Would that not be consider aiding and abetting? SB-1160 imposes a $5 tax on those non-citizens using an EIN/Tax ID # in lieu of the SSN, and requires a 2/3 super majority by the California Legislature to approve that tax increase. However, that's been met with the urgency clause. SB-1160 has been prepared for court challenges as it contains a severable clause.

Here are two red flag paragraphs.... (6) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly assist in obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any person whose presence in the United States is not authorized under federal law. This bill would delete that provision. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to collect and provide that information to the Department of Justice, and would prohibit the Department of Justice from providing the information to the federal government or any other law enforcement agency, except in connection with prosecuting a person for illegally attempting to purchase or obtain a firearm, dangerous weapon, or explosive.

In summary, this amended version of SB-1160 promotes countless forms of fraud including, voter fraud and banking fraud, and continued violation of US Immigration Laws. SB-1160 does not even meet Governor Gray Davis requirements of the 1992 versions, under AB-60 by Cedillo and it's companion legislation SB-804 by Polanco, which were both vetoed in September of 1992 by the former Governor as a threat to national security.

SB-1160 rewards immigration law violaters with a California Driver's License. SB-1160 cannot be referended, and hinders the ability of law enforcement by removing requirements to report all immigration law violators to the appropriate US Department or Agency. SB-1160 will allow terrorists to apply for a California Driver's License, as terrorists previously did prior to the 9-11 Attack on America. SB-1160 does not provide a background check and such statements by the author and supporters are a complete fraud and lie. SB-1160 represents a Clear and Present Danger to the National Security of the United States.

Save Our State rejects this legislation and stands in opposition to SB-1160. Accordingly, Save Our State shall refile our initiative within a few days of SB-1160 becoming law. Save Our State recommends rejection of SB-1160 to the people of California and that our opposition be placed in public record, and reported to the Senate Rules Committee, and members of the Press.

(Excerpt) Read more at save187.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: California; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cedillo; driverslicense; illegalaliens; sb1160; schhwarzenegger
I am curious, what will your reaction be if Arnie signs this piece of trash into law? Do you think Republican Arnie supporters will continue to be mesmerized by him? I do know that many 'Republican' loyalists just go along with whatever the party leaders do.. along with media pundits such as Hugh Hewit, Larry Elder, Hannity, etc.

But do you think the actual people in the party will accept this? In reality, there's not much they could do about it even if they 'disapprove'. Arnold really has nothing to lose by signing this into law. What will people do, stomp their feet? Oh well. I'm sure Arnold would be 'devastated' by that, LOL.

There won't be a recall, and this law has an 'urgency clause', so it will be referendum-proof. it will go into effect immediately when signed.

I personally would never vote for Schwarzenegger, (I voted for McClintock).. but even if there was proposed 'recall' of Arnie, I would not support it in this instance. The reason is because Arnold never lied to the voters about this issue. Arnold never CLAIMED to be aganst licenses for illegals... and anyone who followed this issue in any depth was well aware of that last year, long before the election. The only objection he had to SB60 was the provisions of it.; In principle, he does not oppose licensing illegals if the bill has adequate (alleged) 'safety checks' that satisfy him.

Besides that, there is no one who would run against Schwarzenegger. McClintock is secure in his senate seat and Arnie just raised $400,000 for him a few weeks ago.

So, given these facts.. if he signs this (I personally think it will be signed within the next 2 weeks) what do you think the republicans will do? I think they 'might' complain and gripe a bit for a few weeks, pout a lil bit and say 'that's not fair! he tricked us!' but then will 'get over it', forgive him, and still vote for him next election. He will win by a landslide and the muscled mesmerized moviestar crowd will be tickled pink.

What say you? ;-)

1 posted on 06/06/2004 3:33:06 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Highly recommend you read:


Licenses for lawbreakers (illegal immigrants) -- the sequel (California)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1148722/posts

"FORGET THE HYPE and the threats and the rumors about a deal brewing in Sacramento. California is not going to enact a bill to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses this year or anytime soon."


2 posted on 06/06/2004 3:51:47 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Your quote above was from an editorial opinion written by 'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is).



If you want to deny the fact that Arnold will sign this bill, that's your perogative. But why not answer my hypothetical question, just for fun.
"if" he signs it, what do you think the public reaction will be?


And also, why do you think he won't sign it? he has stated many times he is not against drivers licenses for illegals. All theyre arguing about now is whether or not the license will have an identifying mark to show theyre not citizens. That is the ONLY point of contention between Arnold and the democrats. What don't you get about this? Why do you think Arnold is just 'fooling them, tricking the dems, stringing them along'? That theory doesn't really make sense, and there is no proof of it.


3 posted on 06/06/2004 3:58:32 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Well we recalled one POS governor...
no reason why we can't recall another one!


4 posted on 06/06/2004 3:59:03 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; MindFire

I havent really studied this indepth.

But choosing to be an ostrich doesn't help.

These people are here.

driver licences might be a good way to document them.

Even if their driver licences don'tt specify their legal status, the DMV's internal records should document that for security reasons and should require them to inform the DMV before they change residences.


5 posted on 06/06/2004 4:00:07 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

"Debra Saunders" whoever she is...

Before you reveal your ignorance any further, why don't you learn who she is? I've made it easy for you - just click on the link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=debra+saunders


6 posted on 06/06/2004 4:01:39 PM PDT by EllaMinnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Your quote above was from an editorial opinion written by 'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is).


===

I didn't suggest you read the quote, I suggested you read the article, which you obviously haven't done.


7 posted on 06/06/2004 4:03:09 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

So, why don't you tell me what you will do if Arnold will NOT sign the bill -- a much more likely scenario, than your hypothetical of "what if he will sign it".


8 posted on 06/06/2004 4:04:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
I am curious, what will your reaction be if Arnie signs this piece of trash into law?

I'll send campaign dollars to anybody else but him and I won't vote for him.

Do you think Republican Arnie supporters will continue to be mesmerized by him?

Probably.

9 posted on 06/06/2004 4:07:54 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerrydavenport
driver licences might be a good way to document them.

This would be just as rampant with fraud as the "documention" used in the 1986 Amnesty.

10 posted on 06/06/2004 4:10:23 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jerrydavenport
Since you are new around here, I will cut you some slack...
but if you think that the illegals are going to rush down to the DMV and then down to their local AAA and buy auto insurance you best check your meds...

We can't even get them to obey the laws on the books now,
why on earth would the illegals spend more money on insurance and getting driver's licenses when they don't have to!!!
The INS, the state and local law enforcement do not enforce the laws on the books now!
I don't know why you would think that one more law is gonna make any difference!

RINOld needs to spend his time cutting costs, regulations and bureaucracies in CA not creating more!
11 posted on 06/06/2004 4:21:28 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
There won't be a recall, and this law has an 'urgency clause', so it will be referendum-proof. it will go into effect immediately when signed.

What indication do you have that 6 Assembly Republicans and 2 Senate Republicans will sign on to the urgency provision? KFI radio asked every Republican in the legislature whether they'd vote for an urgency clause, and all but two in the Assembly gave an unequivocal "no".

If Arnie signs this, we're going to referend it just like the last time, and just like the last time, we'll get it stopped. I have a hard time believing that the Democrats are dumb enough to remind the voters this close to an election just why they recalled Davis. Putting this in the front of voter's minds again is a sure way to lose some seats.

It's possible, I suppose, that the Democrats are delusional enough to think that they can get some mileage out of plopping this in front of Schwarzenegger and forcing him to -- they think -- either tick off Republicans by signing it, or ticking off Hispanics by vetoing it. So far, Schwarzenegger seems to be playing a game of, "Well, add this to it. Ok, now add that to it." He keeps coming up with necessary "strengthening," and if they ignore it and put the bill in front of him without adding all his little nips and tucks, he'll have an excuse to veto it. Let's see if he does.

12 posted on 06/06/2004 4:24:15 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

I'm in Arizona, not Cali, but I'd bet a lot of states might decide a Cali drivers license was useless as a form of identification.

Arizona has a bill in the works now -- if your current state does not have adequate standards for positive identification before issuing a license, you're gonna be jumping through a lot of hoops to get one here.

If he signs it, I know a number of merchants here who will no longer accept a Cali license for purchases by check.


13 posted on 06/06/2004 4:25:30 PM PDT by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

"So far, Schwarzenegger seems to be playing a game of, "Well, add this to it. Ok, now add that to it." He keeps coming up with necessary "strengthening," and if they ignore it and put the bill in front of him without adding all his little nips and tucks, he'll have an excuse to veto it. "

==

That's exactly what Arnold is doing.

People just refuse to acknowledge that the guy is not stupid, in fact, he runs circles around the Democrats.


14 posted on 06/06/2004 4:27:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jerrydavenport
driver licences might be a good way to document them.

Document them for what purpose? For security? If the Matricula Consular source document is fraudulent, then the subsequently-issued driver's license is worthless as a form of ID. Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to put his real name down on the application.

The argument I hear that's the most ludicrous is that this will be a way to make them safer drivers because now they'll obey the traffic laws. If somebody's driving illegally now, do you think they're going to stop if they fail their driver's license test or get too many tickets? No, they'll keep driving without the license, just as they have up to now.

15 posted on 06/06/2004 4:32:01 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: MindFire

One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"
The second man says: "Of course I do."
The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"
The second man replies: "No, I don't."
The first man insists: "Then shut up!"

The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too


17 posted on 06/06/2004 4:59:36 PM PDT by steplock (http://www.gohotsprings.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick

Thanks for the 'easy link'. :-D

But, am I ignorant just because I don't know who "Debra Saunders" is? I'm so sorry. :-( , lol.

Okay, so she is a columnist and writes opinion peices for TownHall.com. What's the point? I can direct you to 100 other conservative columnists who have an opposing view. That has nothing to do w/ my topic.


Do you take her word as somehow 'gospel' on this issue, above the CRA, SaveourLicense.com and The authors of prop 187? if so, why?

By the way.. do you know who Beth Jennings is? How about Thomas Sheridan. Your reply is imperitive to this topic!




18 posted on 06/06/2004 5:41:40 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

"'Debra Saunders', (whoever she is)."

DEBRA J. SAUNDERS (a regular columnist on Townhall.com)


In July 1992, Debra J. Saunders became a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Her column currently runs on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays in the paper. Before working for the Chronicle, Saunders worked as a columnist and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Daily News, beginning in 1987.

Saunders' column is syndicated through Creators Syndicate and runs in newspapers throughout the country. In addition to writing her syndicated column, Saunders has written pieces that have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Reader's Digest and Reason magazine. She has also appeared on "Politically Incorrect," CNN, BBC radio and "The News Hour" on PBS. Her book, The World According to Gore, published by Encounter Books, was released earlier this year.
In a world full of labels, Saunders is herself. A one-time registered Democrat turned Republican, she claims no loyalty to either party and takes pride in her unpredictability and irreverence for big-party politics. "I'm a Republican," she says, "but not a good Republican."

Saunders' political experience includes stints working as a writer/researcher and account executive for Russo Watts & Rollins in Sacramento, Calif., and Todd Domke Associates in Boston. With both organizations, her political work included research, issues strategy and advertising in U.S. Senate and congressional races. In addition, Saunders also worked for the Republican leader of the California Assembly.

In 1992, Saunders taught a course in editorial and column writing at UCLA Extension, and led a study group on political speechmaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 1984. In 1980, Saunders graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a B.A. in Greek and Latin.


19 posted on 06/06/2004 5:47:03 PM PDT by lancer (If you are not with us, you are against us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I understand that you don't think that he will sign it. We covered that. My questions is why dont you think he will? You obviously have to know that he is not opposed to this; he has stated constantly. In principle, he has NO problem with this law, its only the provisions he has to work out. he said yesterday he is hopeful and coming to a solution. So why do you insist he will never sign it??
That just doesn't make sense. There is much more evidence he will sign it, than that he won't.


You think he's just 'playing games, decieving the dems, stringing them along to dupe them.. i contend he is doing that to the loyal repub followers. since you dont want to answer my question of what the reaction will be when he signs it, i guess we will just leave it at that.


we will see soon enough (most likely within 10 days from today). If i am wrong, i will admit it and you'll have this post to prove i was wrong. don't bet on it!


20 posted on 06/06/2004 5:47:58 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
You asked:

"What indication do you have that 6 Assembly Republicans and 2 Senate Republicans will sign on to the urgency provision? KFI radio asked every Republican in the legislature whether they'd vote for an urgency clause, and all but two in the Assembly gave an unequivocal "no".

Thanks for the reply. Saveourlicense.com lists 3 repubs who are on the fence. the authors of Prop 187 state on their site that this SB1160 can NOT be referended. do you have info to the contrary?

Could you clarify what the requirements are to get the urgency clause included? do they need a certain number of repub votes to get that included in the bill?

from what i understand, sb1160 does have an urgency clause in it, and they already have enough votes to pass this bill in both senate and assembly. Hence the author of 187 is already gearing up to file an injunction in court to 'try' and stop it after it passes, which they claim it will.

the CRA at saveourlicense.com is simply urging people to contact their reps,. they have not organized or pledged a referendum on this. because as i said before, they also, (along with save187.com) have said it's referendum proof.

21 posted on 06/06/2004 5:55:34 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lancer

Are you guys her publicity agents??! As I said above, i checked out the 'easy google link' of Debra as was provided to me.. I just don't see how this is relevent to this issue.


You are changing the subject of licenses to illegals, to a completely irrelevant tangent. I could post Michelle Malkins' biography and they could write dueling columns. who cares!

Debra Saunders supports Arnold. Debra Saunders insists sb1160 will NEVER PASS. Debra Saunders writes columns. I got it, I got it! Oy vey! ;-þ


22 posted on 06/06/2004 6:00:54 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver; kellynla

Dumpster, i agree w/ you. Kelly, who would run against arnie? I not only dont see it happening but i wouldnt support a recall of him, and here's why.

If the voters can not even pay attenion to the public stances of the candidates, they have no right to recall them because they didnt pay attention.

I am not referring to you; i know that before the election, you knew exactly what Arnie was up to, because i remember your posts.
Yes he was deceptive, but he didn't lie. He said all along he supported licences for illegals.

if the people arent happy, just vote for someone else next time. If this recall proved anything, it's that People can be too easily influenced by propaganda. They recalled davis and basically put in another liberal.
what utter nonsense!


Besides, who would run against him? McClintock would not do it; no way. who else is there?


By the way, I heard that the insurance lobbyist groups that always support repubs, are pouring money into the state democrats coffers. the insurance industry wants sb1160 to pass.





23 posted on 06/06/2004 6:09:18 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
If the voters can not even pay attenion to the public stances of the candidates, they have no right to recall them because they didnt pay attention.

Well, they still have the right to recall him, but I doubt if those who voted for him would try. I didn't vote for him because of his stance on the license issue.

If this recall proved anything, it's that People can be too easily influenced by propaganda.

Yes, indeed.

Besides, who would run against him? McClintock would not do it; no way. who else is there?

Cruz? ;^)

By the way, I heard that the insurance lobbyist groups that always support repubs, are pouring money into the state democrats coffers. the insurance industry wants sb1160 to pass.

I doubt if the illegals will pay for insurance so it will be up to the taxpayers to "help out" the poor people. Either way, the insurance companies must smell money.

24 posted on 06/06/2004 6:22:56 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett; FairOpinion; calcowgirl

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/9558461p-10482125c.html
Governor upbeat on license bill
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, June 6, 2004

HOLT - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Saturday he is very optimistic about reaching agreement on a law offering driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants and denied he is insisting the licenses carry a mark that flags the holders' illegal status.

  "If they cannot satisfy all of the security requirements, the next best thing would be to have a different type of a driver's license so we can identify that this is only for driving legally, and not to be used for anything else - airports, checking accounts - all of those things that we usually use our driver's license for,"
Schwarzenegger said.

"One way or the other, we will do it, and that's why we are negotiating," the governor said. "I'm very optimistic that it will be done, and it's just a matter of time."


25 posted on 06/06/2004 6:28:58 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

"we will see soon enough (most likely within 10 days from today). If i am wrong, i will admit it and you'll have this post to prove i was wrong. don't bet on it!"

How about if you are wrong you will write ten times: "I, MindFire, was wrong, and FairOpinion was right about Arnold. From now on I will not bash Arnold, I will trust him." ;)

If Arnold signs it, I will write 10 times, that I am shocked at Arnold.

But let's wait, before you bash him.

You all seem to conveniently forget that Arnold was the one who made the Legislature cancel the previously passed bill.

IF you would read that article (again, if necessary) and stopped and thought about it, you would realize how much sense it makes.


26 posted on 06/06/2004 6:36:16 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
But let's wait, before you bash him.

Hell no. This calls for pre-emptive bashing.

27 posted on 06/06/2004 8:11:02 PM PDT by lowbridge ("You are an American. You are my brother. I would die for you." -Kurdish Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Well .. I didn't vote for him .. and I don't want to tell you "I told you so" .. but a lot of us tried to tell all of you.

I can only hope that repubs will regain their senses and vote in enough repubs in the statehouse to get rid of this horrible legislation.


28 posted on 06/06/2004 11:05:08 PM PDT by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
the authors of Prop 187 state on their site that this SB1160 can NOT be referended.

Normal bills don't take effect (until after the election) if a referendum petition against it qualifies for the ballot. A bill with an Urgency Clause takes effect immediately. I'm not sure if they can't be referended at all or if a referendum simply doesn't stop the bill unless/until the referendum passes. Maybe someone else knows better.


clarify what the requirements are to get the urgency clause included? do they need a certain number of repub votes to get that included in the bill?

2/3 of each house for an urgency clause, 1/2 of each house for normal non-budget non-tax laws. Doesn't matter to which party those 2/3 belong.

Because the Democrats very likely all support SB1160, just like they supported the past few budgets and attempted tax hikes, they usually need several Republicans to achieve 2/3.

Since Sen. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale?) died last month and his seat will remain vacant until the November election, the Senate as only 39 members, which reduces the 2/3 majority to 26 people. There are 25 Democrats and 14 Republicans, so Cedillo needs to find only 1 Republican Senator.

The Assembly has 32 Republicans and 48 Democrats. 54 is at least 2/3 of 80 members, so Cedillo needs to find 6 Republican Assemblymen.


sb1160 does have an urgency clause in it, and they already have enough votes to pass this bill in both senate and assembly

There are definitely enough votes to pass without an urgency clause, given the history of past versions of AB60/SB60/SB1160.

To pass with an urgency clause, 1 GOP Senator and 6 GOP Assemblymen need to vote for it, assuming all Democrats vote for it.

In 2001, 1 GOP Senator (McPherson) and several GOP Assemblymen (including some who typically vote conservatively) voted for AB60. That bill passed 23-8 in the Senate and 52-20 in the Assembly (both on 9/14/01!) but was vetoed by Davis because he worried about the lack of "common-sense protections," especially since it came just days after Sept 11th. Still, it contained more security provisions than SB60 in 2003, against which every GOP Senator voted, and I think all GOP Assemblymen and even a few Democrats, but which Davis signed in the midst of the Recall campaign.

So, Cedillo ought to simply break out his old 2001 version and he might easily get 2/3.

29 posted on 06/07/2004 1:54:44 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
What indication do you have that 6 Assembly Republicans and 2 Senate Republicans will sign on to the urgency provision?

39 (Senators) is a perfect multiple of 3.
They only need 1 Senate Republican for anything requiring a 2/3 supermajority until November, because 2/3 of 39 is 26, and there are 25 Democrats.

30 posted on 06/07/2004 1:57:44 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
We can't even get them to obey the laws on the books now, why on earth would the illegals spend more money on insurance and getting driver's licenses when they don't have to!!!

Good point. But, if the illegal alien license/ID bill prohibits information-sharing with the INS or the federal government, then the illegal aliens need not fear getting deported.

If I were an illegal alien, I'd rather carry an ID that lets me appear to be a legal alien/citizen if it's risk-free than run around without "legal" ID. They would probably get asked fewer questions when paying with a check or credit card, and they could probably cross the border more easily at a normal port of entry.

Besides, even if the INS were given the info, the applicants can give fake/obsolete addresses. Although the DMV requires ID-holders to notify them of address changes within 10 days, do you think the DMV enforces that provision?

(Or, do you even think the INS/USCIS/BCIS/etc. would organize a mass deportation if given perfect information of names and addresses of all illegal aliens in CA?)

31 posted on 06/07/2004 2:05:05 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

He better wait till after the election because thats all you need to vote in this state, a drivers license. The jury is still out on Arnie being a republican in my mind.


32 posted on 06/07/2004 2:05:21 AM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You all seem to conveniently forget that Arnold was the one who made the Legislature cancel the previously passed bill.

Not exactly. The Democrats knew they would face a referendum of SB60, which would publicly repudiate their practice of giving aid and comfort to illegal-aliens and terrorists.

In light of the recall of ex-Governor Davis, the Democrats were eager to lay low for a while, knowing that it would be easier to have a version of the bill after the voters calmed down.

33 posted on 06/07/2004 2:09:58 AM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
I am curious, what will your reaction be if Arnie signs this piece of trash into law?

With the way that most freepers react to every liberal thing the president does, I'll bet they'll just bend over and grab thier ankles with a smile.

Of coarse while they're in this compromising position, they'll also shout down anyone who offers criticism.

34 posted on 06/07/2004 2:17:14 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heleny
Helen, this whole bill proposed by the 'Rats is just another ruse to register illegals to vote through "motor voter."

And if RINOld doesn't recognize it, then I feel sorry for him.

We all know that the illegals go to these check cashing places and cash their checks without an ID and then wire whatever funds they want back to their families. So we supporting the Mexican economy while "paying the freight" at a cost of American taxpayers of BILLIONS A YEAR!

The illegals drive, without a license and without insurance, vehicles that are not registered to them(another scam perpetrated in CA that many don't know about which they "rent" illegally).

And the legal immigrants are just as outraged, if not more so, by this bill as the citizenry. Because the illegals pull down the wages of all of those legal immigrants who would otherwise take those jobs.

This bill is just another step in rewarding illegal activity and will open the flood gates from the border and destroy the sovereignty and economy of CA.


The geniuses in DC and Sacramento need to wise up and start enforcing the immigration laws on the books or this whole country will go to hell in a hand-basket!
35 posted on 06/07/2004 8:24:25 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
Are you guys her publicity agents??!

LOL! I guess it's true that no good turn goes unpunished! For the record, I have no relationship whatsoever with Debra Saunders. I do, however, read her columns once in a while when Townhall.com includes her work in the email I get every day.

I guess I'm guilty of trying to help a fellow freeper learn to whom the original poster was referring. I posted it before I saw your response to the other poster.

No doubt, it'll happen again and again, 'cause I like to help out.

36 posted on 06/07/2004 3:45:18 PM PDT by lancer (If you are not with us, you are against us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

Well first of all, we'd know how many there are. Where they are. We'll also know when they move residences.

And i suppose the driver licences would require atleast some sort of a priot ID or references from the embassy etc.

You gotta verify their particulars in some way right?


37 posted on 06/07/2004 8:01:36 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

so you're suggesting that we do nothing?

Pretend as if they don't exist?. How is that going to help anything.

Do you have any better suggestions?

this way, we'd have a much more detailed picture and a whole lot more information about them, as opposed to today, when have none.

I mean if the state and county police can make sure that all of us pay insurance etc.

what makes you think, they might not be able to do the same for the illegals.

I don't know the details. And i haven't given it much thought. But i'd suppose the law enforcement guys and various departments would be working on that.


38 posted on 06/07/2004 8:05:43 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
Sorry to see you waste your time writing this drivel. ;-)
39 posted on 06/07/2004 8:07:59 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad (Rising waves, what motive is behind your impulse? The desire to reach upwards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerrydavenport
so you're suggesting that we do nothing?

How 'bout enforcing the immigration laws that are on the books...now wouldn't that be unique!
Deport the illegals and fine every business in CA that employs them!
And if you think that people who are here illegally are going to rush down to the DMV and get a driver's license and then go down to their local AAA and purchase insurance then you best check your meds! LMAO
Since the illegals aren't doing that now, what makes you think they'll do it ever! Why should they spend money getting a driver's license and auto insurance when they aren't doing it now!!! why should they spend the money? hmmmmmmm

But i'd suppose the law enforcement guys and various departments would be working on that.

oh really? And how many cops and CHP do you know? I can tell you that the local cops won't even pick up the illegals standing in front of the HOME DEPOTS in CA now!!!
40 posted on 06/07/2004 8:28:38 PM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver; John Jorsett; FairOpinion; MindFire; kellynla

well i'd say you are grossly misinformed about immigration issues.

1- I view white collar immigration as the greatest threat.

You know why?

These guys are taking all the best jobs, pushing americans down the economic and social ladder.

The british and the french ruled their colonies, simply by putting their people into white collar jobs with a political clout and policy making powers over those governed.

We are being colonized with perfectly legal white collar immigration, while all you do is worry about poor mexicans who are doing jobs that most americans don't want to do.

White collar immigration is pushing americans down the ladder, while mexican immigration is helping americans move into better jobs, while the mexicans take the unskilled ones.

you tell me which one is worse.

The change will never come through violence, protests or racism.

It will come only, when congressmen are educated about the threat that we face from these white collar immigrants to our jobs, our economy, our culture and most important of all our identity as a sovereign nation.

This will again have to come through informative seminars, workshops, news paper ads etc.

Finally when congress is convinced, it will bring in new legislation to put a stop to it.

White collar immigration is also easy to control by simply refusing them visas.


41 posted on 06/07/2004 10:19:20 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver; John Jorsett; FairOpinion; MindFire; kellynla

A- First of all you need to grade the immigration threat.

1- Muslims would be the most dangerous immigrants, because of the terror and ideological threat.

2- White collar immigrants who push americans down the social and economic ladder and threaten the sovereignity of our nation with their economic and political clout should come next.

3- People who hate the west and think of the US as an imperialist power should be next. As they aren't likely to live in harmony with us.

4- People who's cultures are at conflict with western values and way of life would come after them, as these can again give rise to conflict within the society.

5- Christians from countries who are friendly towards america can blend into the american society rather than conflict with it's values should be at the bottom of the list.

B- As for identifying immigrants with drivers licences. i think this is the next best thing to deporting them.

i- You'd atleast have them documented, identified and be in a position to track their movement.

ii-You'd also be able to make them pay taxes and insurance etc

Right now, we don't even know how many of them are out there.

iii- You'd have to realize that immigration laws are enforced by the INS

whereas civil laws are enforced by the cops.

The INS might be lax, but the cops aren't so.

once they are documented they'd be forced to pay taxes and insurance etc.

iv- it also makes the work easier for the INS, who'd now know where to find them.


42 posted on 06/07/2004 11:27:18 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jerrydavenport
Well first of all, we'd know how many there are. Where they are. We'll also know when they move residences.

Ok, assuming for discussion purposes that this is true: then what? What use do we make of that information?

And i suppose the driver licences would require atleast some sort of a priot ID or references from the embassy etc.

A Matricula Consular is all that would be required. I work with some Border Patrol guys. They pick up people regularly with offically-issued Matricula Consular cards. It's not at all uncommon to get people with several of them in different names. The Mexican system is so corrupt and/or incompetent that anyone can get as many Matriculas as they want.

You gotta verify their particulars in some way right?

That's what you'd think, but it doesn't happen.

43 posted on 06/09/2004 6:20:30 AM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; John Jorsett; MindFire; NewRomeTacitus

Most of our IT workers hail from the india-pakistan region. They often boast of great technical skills

I mean did these people invent the rocket? the microchip?. Are these people inventors or pioneers?

Are these people bringing new technology, sciences and concepts to this country?

How many nobel laureates can that region of 1 billion plus people boast of in over a 100 years,2?3?4?

what would that put the ratio of nobel laureates in these countries at?lol

It's surprising how they have nothing to show for in terms of contributions, when they come to this country.

But then the liberals in this country group them together with the most brilliant american students, who do most of
their work and guess what these people get the credit for it. The liberal professors then put a bright american
student to do all their research work and guess what they again take the credit for it.

these people are some crooks.

what is their ratio of graduates in their countries? . what is the ratio of schools?colleges? lol

Do they have any internationally recognized research institutes in their countries?

what industrial sector can these countries boast of? A sector that could contribute to other countries in the world?

Where is the brain going to come from, if there has to be a drain?.lol

I laugh at these liberal authored articles on brain drain. if anything it's a corruption, bad practices and bad ethic gain.

Look at how many times you need to get patches for your computer programs

If these people ran our automobile industry, the number of reworks would have wrecked that industry.

Our high tech industry is still trying desperately to recover from their bad ethic. It was virtually wrecked by them in the late 90's.

We are still to recover from the IT bubble that burst in the late 90's, a bubble that was fed with bull and lies from the region.


44 posted on 06/09/2004 5:44:31 PM PDT by jerrydavenport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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