Posted on 02/11/2002 11:14:47 AM PST by janetgreen
Good idea, better than mine. Barbara Boxer and Jane Harman love the illegal vote, and don't even answer letters. I'm going to back Simon in the governor race, and I will contact him regarding this issue.
The federal government never made any law regarding the provision of citizen benefits in the case of compulsory schooling, precisely because it was considered to be a state issue. The only federal "law" that applied was one Supreme Court decision - Plyler. And as I've pointed out, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court led the dissenters in a 5-4 decision by pointing out that the majority was engaging in law making, not law interpretation. Read the decision yourself. You can read it on-line. Then report back to everyone here why Mr. Justice Brennan is right and Justices Burger, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and White are wrong. You can find it here: Plyler V. Doe
And then explain to me why the citizens of a foreign nation have the right to decide that they will be the beneficiaries of my labor, and not me. Or why they have a right to come among us without our leave.
Currently, our representative form of government seems to consist of electing professional politicians to serve in state legislatures and Congress where they then pass laws to benefit lobbyists and special interest groups in exchange for bribes, or what some people call campaign contributions.
At least us voters get to vote directly on ballot initiatives, which is a more pure form of representation than to send someone to Congress to represent hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters. Agreed, the ballot iniatiative process isn't perfect, but at least the voter gets to be directly involved in creating and passing legislation, and I like that.
Unlike you, I do remember the ads.
My first thought was that Tom Metzger had been hired as a consultant. My second thought was that the backers of 187 were trying to make conservatives look like racists.
For crying out loud, if we can't even deny state services to people that aren't legally in the country, why should we even bother to have immigration laws, or really, any laws?
Fine, then sell it solely on that basis. The way it got sold was guaranteed to make Repulicans look like crazed skinheads.
It's called "not taking any chances." They are opposed to Proposition 187; Davis, Bustamante, and Lockyer are vested with the authority to engage OR NOT ENGAGE in lawsuits to uphold ballot propositions. They used that discretion to make SURE the issue wouldn't come up during their terms. If you don't like that, then write a ballot proposition requiring that the state of California vigorously defend ALL ballot propositions--but that would also require a conservative governor to defend and uphold some of the liberal looniness that gets put through, as well.
And then explain to me why the citizens of a foreign nation have the right to decide that they will be the beneficiaries of my labor, and not me. Or why they have a right to come among us without our leave.
I never argued that--you are merely saying that I did. Please enunciate, IN DETAIL, exactly why I should respond to false charges from you.
Proposition 187 was on constitutionally shaky ground to begin with, because immigration is a federal issue, not a state issue.
We then had the spectacle of Pete Wilson--a man not known for giving an airborne improper relationship about illegal immigration during his time as mayor of San Diego or Senator from California, and he hadn't shown any sign of being interested in 1991-1993 when he became governor--suddenly discovering nativist impulses, just in time for a reelection bid AND a Presidential campaign foray. (Kinda like Hillary suddenly discovering she was REALLY a Yankees fan growing up in Chicago during the Senate race in New Yawk.)
If we'd had the testicular fortitude to pitch Wilson out during the 1994 primary and nominate Ron Unz, and to stay away from an unneeded fight on Proposition 187, Gray Davis would be known only as Moonbeam's former chief of staff. Instead, we woke the slumbering Hispanic electorate with a commercial campaign that didn't discuss illegal immigration, it just screamed "BROWN PEOPLE DOUBLEPLUSBAD!"
It gave us "auto insurance reform" that jacks your rates up 30% for one speeding ticket, but doesn't touch them if you get a DUI conviction--as long as you don't lose your license.
How many of those Hispanic voters are citizens of the U.S.?
Oh how terrible it is that the citizens of CA voted to not provide subsided education to the citizens of Mexico that are here ILLEGALLY. I wonder what Mexico's policy is on providing free education to illegal foreigners ...or any other country in this world for that matter? Do you have any sympathies at all for the taxpayers that are forced to pay the education bills for kids of parents that are breaking the laws of this country for just being here? If the Federal Government were fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of protecting our people from this INVASION and ENFORCING our immigration laws this would not be crisis.
Spending dollars in support of an anti-Colombian drug producers/rebel guerillas movie is also a great way to pi**-off the liberals.
>sarcasm<
It is amazing how the open border crowd can twist reality into an affront to a mostly illegal ethnic group when the real affront is to the American citizens of this land.
Forget it, junior. I'm not going to respond to any of your juvenile demands or attempts to inject anger and hysteria into what was a civil discussion. You do this on every thread I've seen - you accuse every one of making false accusations, you affect self-righteous indignation about everyone insulting your opinions, it gets tedious.
I'm sure you'll be jumping up and down in response to this. I could care less if you ever respond to anything I post, say, or write.
Have a nice night.
What's been happening over the last few days is, as you said, veeery interesting. All the open borders types use the Judge Pfaelzer argument that a "state can't make an immigration law", but it 'twould appear that in denying post-secondary "benefits" as well as driver's licenses that they are doing just that, at least according to Pfaelzer's definition. The federal district court judge threw out the suit against CUNY. The Nebraska state legislature said no way. And reciprocity is being withdrawn from Tennessee, which will soon be a pariah state in terms of the integrity of its state issued I.D.
Which leads me to a comment. 187, in-state tuition for non-citizen residents (yay or nay), and citizenship requirements for driver's licenses are all NOT immigration laws as claimed by the judge. They do not prescribe anything about naturalization, who and how people will come to the US, nothing that could be construed as an immigration function under law. They merely enquire as to whether such steps have been accomplished, as prescribed under federal law. No one so far has made the argument to the contrary.
The Plyler decision didn't even try to use that argument. It was based on the application of the 14th amendment equal protection clause, buttressed by a social policy consideration. The whole merit of the dismissal of 187 could come into question, at least in different federal circuit courts. If it got to the Supreme Court (and I'm sure the ACLU is desperately working to stop that right now), the issue could be resolved. But I still advocate a school district in CA trying it first. It would force the issue.
But of course we're all racists, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for not welcoming everyone who wants to descend on us with pots-full of dollars. Citizenship on demand. And affirmative action for all. Isn't that America?
Yep, you know that the race card is going to be pulled more and more as Americans demand that OUR government do something about unchecked illegal immigration and the insane side of legal immigration. Should be interesting. I suspect that there has been a sea change of opinion about immigration in the land since 9/11 and that this topic will take on increasing importance in the years ahead.
What is maddening is that the “so-called” conservatives who favor business as usual with immigration have adapted the very techniques that liberals use against them (and us) when faced with opposition to their positions. After crying for years about how the liberals use the dirty, low-down race card against conservatives in other policy matters the open border “so-called” conservatives use the same tactics the liberals use to stifle debate on this topic. They are a bunch of hypocrites. This time it won't work for anyone. Most people I think are ready for serious action on the immigration issue and are tired of race baiting in general when they see the reality of what our immigration policies have wrought on this nation every day.
Why keep it ing the CA docs if it isn't law?
Can anyone say this is for ure 187 here?
It would take a person who says they are staying out of the way of the will of the people. It would be the only excuse.
Whereas Davis stood IN-THE-WAY of the vote of the people.
Something needs to be done. Not only in California but everywhere.
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.