PING! 
Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.
Posted on 09/03/2003 11:04:49 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
Democrats all over are beginning to feel the heat (fue to things like the recall). It's over for them, and as a result, they're cramming as much of their bad legislation in as they possibly can in their final days. Much like Clinton and his last days in office, all those Executive orders, all those pardons, etc.
The last set of Senate votes was 24-14. Two didn't vote (one from each party?). I think that was the version with the biometric data or whatever objectionable (to the illegal-alien-coddlers) section, although the democrats who complained about it still got in line to vote along their party-line. Yesterday's news said that the current version would easily pass in the state Senate today.
Ventura Co. went for Bush and Simon. The national map has the county colored incorrectly.
It seems that we are in immenent danger of giving California Drivers licenses to illegal aliens without any safeguards. The bill passed the Assembly last night, looks to pass the senate today, and will be signed by Davis if it does.
I don't know what can be done to stop it, but I have an argument that might give Dems pause if it can be entered into the Senate floor debate before the vote.
The argument is simple. If this bill passes, allowing anyone to get a CADL without any checks, it will undermine all the gun control bills the Dems have worked so hard for. In other words, I could call and get a state tax ID # under a false name, use that to get a CADL under that name, and then go purchase a firearm. Since it is a bogus name and the thumb print can't be used as part of the background check, not even the Brady Bill will prevent me from getting a firearm--here or one state over.
If anyone has a direct line to any Republican State Senators, please present this argument to them for use. It's the only thing I can think of that might turn the vote around.
Thanks.
Too late for that.
Immigrants Enter Country through 'Gateway' States Before Moving Inland, Census Bureau Says
8the 5.6 million foreign-born population who moved to the United States between 1995 and 2000 entered the country through six "gateway" states (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey), an analysis of Census 2000 data shows.
At the same time, three of the gateway states New York, California and Illinois had considerable net out-migration of their foreign-born populations to other states between 1995 and 2000. New Jersey was the only gateway state to have net out-migration of natives but net in-migration of foreign-born people.
"One of the major findings of Census 2000 was the overall size of the foreign-born population and its presence in areas outside the traditional immigration gateways such as California, New York and Texas," said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon. "Like the Westward migration of immigrants in centuries past, their movements remind us that opportunities abound throughout our country." Among the biggest beneficiaries of secondary migration, i.e., foreign-born migrants from other states, were North Carolina (76,000) and Nevada (73,000). Nevada had more foreign-born migrants from other states than it did from abroad.
The new Census Bureau report, Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000, examined Census 2000 data to compare migration patterns for natives (people born in the United States) with people born abroad. Among the report's findings:
-- Domestic migration patterns of foreign-born and native migrants were similar, with common destinations. -- Between 1995 and 2000, California's net out-migration rate to other states for its foreign-born people (30.4 people lost per 1,000 foreign-born residents in 1995) was higher than its net out-migration rate for natives (22.6 people lost per 1,000 native residents in 1995).
-- California was responsible for most foreign-born migrants to Georgia, with 19,000 making the cross-country move during the five-year period.
-- Nevada had the highest net migration rate of foreign-born migrants from other states, gaining 276 people for every 1,000 foreign-born residents in 1995, while Florida had the largest net migration gain of foreign-born migrants from other states: 89,000.
Some states and counties in the Midwest had net domestic out-migration of natives but net domestic in-migration of the foreign-born population. For example, Nebraska and Kansas had native net out-migration rates of 13.1 and 5.2, but foreign-born net in-migration rates of 101.0 and 47.6, respectively.
The report and supplementary data tables, as well as previously published migration reports, are available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/migration.html.
Coming to a neighborhood near you soon
Instead of splitting CA (so that the former CA would effectively get two more Senators, and also two more electoral votes), why not change CA's electoral vote system to some form of proportional representation?
In 2000, Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-37) proposed letting each Congressional district have one electoral vote. The two other votes would go to the winner of the popular vote across CA. I liked his proposal, especially because CA's Congressional representation keeps increasing, but I never heard about his proposal again.
In the extreme, if CA had a little over half of the US population, Presidential elections would no longer need to be conducted in the other 49 states if CA doesn't change its distribution of electoral votes. Because different areas of CA are so different, with each county almost like a mini-state, Strickland's proposal seemed like a great idea.
It passed the Assembly yesterday. The state Senate is debating it, although the majority democrats are unlikely to change their minds.
Anyone watching and/or listening? What's going on?
Well in this case the debating involves Republican Senators arguing AGAINST the bill and Democrat Senators arguing FOR it.
The bill passed the Assembly yesterday, but legislation must pass both houses of the legislature and then be signed by the governor before it can become law.
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.