Posted on 06/06/2004 3:32:59 PM PDT by MindFire
"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.
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
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.
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.
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."
"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.
Hell no. This calls for pre-emptive bashing.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.