Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!

[johnwk]

SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance (http://www.kmj580.com/pages/landing/?blockID=568756&feedID=806)

”(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to "take the heat" from Republicans for deviating from his party's orthodoxy.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.”

From what Gingrich states, he is more concerned with the well-being of those who have entered our country illegally and concerned about their families, than our federal government’s current attempt to prohibit Arizona and other States from regulating aliens within their borders.

Surely the well being of aliens ought to be of secondary concern to Mr. Gingrich from that of our federal government’s current despotic attempt to forbid the various States to deal with and regulate aliens within their borders__ a power never delegated to the united States, and is one retained by the States under our Constitution‘s Tenth Amendment!

Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about “immigration policy” seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

But is our federal government vested with a “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” within the various State borders and adopt “immigration policy“ which suits Mr. Gingrich‘s vision? Let us review some facts so Mr. Gingrich may rethink his priorities.

FACT: Congress may not assume a power not granted by the Constitution. And so, Eric Holder’s statement that the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration matters is “derived from numerous acts of Congress” is totally without foundation! Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution!

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?

OBSERVATION:

With reference to the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”_ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language.

FACT: Nowhere in our federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear! And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” and “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” is not to be found or substantiated from the text of our Constitution! However, the word “naturalization” does appear in the text of our Constitution and involves an exclusive power granted to Congress!

This leaves us with two important questions which Mr. Gingrich has avoided while promoting his compassionate political views concerning the families of aliens who have entered a State illegally. The two questions being: What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress? And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

In answering these questions we are bound to observe the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

So, to answer the above questions we must determine the meaning of “naturalization’ as our founders used the word with respect to a power granted to Congress, and, we must likewise determine the legislative intent for which said power was granted, and if such power was intended to allow Newt Gringrich’s compassion to interfere with a state's power to regulate aliens within its borders.

In documenting the meaning of “naturalization” as our founders used the word, and the legislative intent for which such power was granted to Congress, let us turn to Federalist No. 42 in which Madison questions how “obnoxious” aliens may have “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship“ within a State proscribing them.

Madison goes on to say “The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

The irrefutable fact is, the meaning of “naturalization” as used by our founders, is nothing more than a power to establish a rule(s) by which an alien is granted citizenship, and was never intended, nor does it include, a power granted to the federal government to interfere with a state regulating aliens within its borders!

This of course is confirmed when studying our founder’s very own words when debating our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, in February of 1790, e.g., REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)

And so, Newt Gingrich, in posturing his compassion towards the families of aliens who have invaded our borders, while ignoring Eric Holder’s attempted usurpation of power and his assault upon the powers retained by the States, especially Arizona‘s retained power to regulate aliens in preserving its general welfare under our Constitution’s Ten Amendment, gives us an indication that Mr. Gringrich’s priority is in harmony with that of Eric Holder and Obama, and not with their sworn oath to support and defend our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

[Gunny]

SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance (http://www.kmj580.com/pages/landing/?blockID=568756&feedID=806)

”(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to "take the heat" from Republicans for deviating from his party's orthodoxy.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.”

From what Gingrich states, he is more concerned with the well-being of those who have entered our country illegally and concerned about their families, than our federal government’s current attempt to prohibit Arizona and other States from regulating aliens within their borders.

Surely the well being of aliens ought to be of secondary concern to Mr. Gingrich from that of our federal government’s current despotic attempt to forbid the various States to deal with and regulate aliens within their borders__ a power never delegated to the united States, and is one retained by the States under our Constitution‘s Tenth Amendment!

Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about “immigration policy” seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

But is our federal government vested with a “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” within the various State borders and adopt “immigration policy“ which suits Mr. Gingrich‘s vision? Let us review some facts so Mr. Gingrich may rethink his priorities.

FACT: Congress may not assume a power not granted by the Constitution. And so, Eric Holder’s statement that the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration matters is “derived from numerous acts of Congress” is totally without foundation! Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution!

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?

OBSERVATION:

With reference to the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”_ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language.

FACT: Nowhere in our federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear! And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” and “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” is not to be found or substantiated from the text of our Constitution! However, the word “naturalization” does appear in the text of our Constitution and involves an exclusive power granted to Congress!

This leaves us with two important questions which Mr. Gingrich has avoided while promoting his compassionate political views concerning the families of aliens who have entered a State illegally. The two questions being: What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress? And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

In answering these questions we are bound to observe the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

So, to answer the above questions we must determine the meaning of “naturalization’ as our founders used the word with respect to a power granted to Congress, and, we must likewise determine the legislative intent for which said power was granted, and if such power was intended to allow Newt Gringrich’s compassion to interfere with a state's power to regulate aliens within its borders.

In documenting the meaning of “naturalization” as our founders used the word, and the legislative intent for which such power was granted to Congress, let us turn to Federalist No. 42 in which Madison questions how “obnoxious” aliens may have “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship“ within a State proscribing them.

Madison goes on to say “The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

The irrefutable fact is, the meaning of “naturalization” as used by our founders, is nothing more than a power to establish a rule(s) by which an alien is granted citizenship, and was never intended, nor does it include, a power granted to the federal government to interfere with a state regulating aliens within its borders!

This of course is confirmed when studying our founder’s very own words when debating our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, in February of 1790, e.g., REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)

And so, Newt Gingrich, in posturing his compassion towards the families of aliens who have invaded our borders, while ignoring Eric Holder’s attempted usurpation of power and his assault upon the powers retained by the States, especially Arizona‘s retained power to regulate aliens in preserving its general welfare under our Constitution’s Ten Amendment, gives us an indication that Mr. Gringrich’s priority is in harmony with that of Eric Holder and Obama, and not with their sworn oath to support and defend our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

And Obama told INS to not enforce its own rules. You can't call one side in not wanting to alienate the Hispanic vote any more than the other. There really isn't a debate here. Enforce the laws we already have. Simple.

[johnwk]

Newt Gingrich has offered his vision for America with respect to aliens who have invaded the borders of the united States, and he would impose that vision upon each of the various States. And in the process he ignores that we have a Constitution which includes the power retained by each State to regulate their internal affairs. And this retained power includes regulating aliens within their own borders to preserve the State‘s general welfare!

Our federal government’s limited power in the area under discussion is that of “naturalization” ___ the setting of a rule by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ and its power does not extend to circumventing a State’s retained power to adopt regulatory legislation to control aliens while in the State’s own borders!

Instead of Newt Gingrich respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was specifically adopted to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, Mr. Gingrich has worked for years to centralize and concentrate power in Washington, as he did with impunity when voting to create Jimmy Carter’s un-constitutional federal department of education!

Is it not apparent that Mr. Gingrich intentionally spat upon our founder’s expressed intentions when helping to create the federal department of education, especially the expressed intentions of Representative Page spoken on Feb.7th, 1792?

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=194)

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

[Gunny]

Newt Gingrich has offered his vision for America with respect to aliens who have invaded the borders of the united States, and he would impose that vision upon each of the various States. And in the process he ignores that we have a Constitution which includes the power retained by each State to regulate their internal affairs. And this retained power includes regulating aliens within their own borders to preserve the State‘s general welfare!

Our federal government’s limited power in the area under discussion is that of “naturalization” ___ the setting of a rule by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ and its power does not extend to circumventing a State’s retained power to adopt regulatory legislation to control aliens while in the State’s own borders!

Instead of Newt Gingrich respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was specifically adopted to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, Mr. Gingrich has worked for years to centralize and concentrate power in Washington, as he did with impunity when voting to create Jimmy Carter’s un-constitutional federal department of education!

Is it not apparent that Mr. Gingrich intentionally spat upon our founder’s expressed intentions when helping to create the federal department of education, especially the expressed intentions of Representative Page spoken on Feb.7th, 1792?

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=194)

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

So you don't really have an argument. You're just a cut-n-paste repeating leftwing mantra without actually addressing the topic.

[johnwk]

So you don't really have an argument. You're just a cut-n-paste repeating leftwing mantra without actually addressing the topic.

Left wing mantra? That's very special. In case you missed it, I laid out my arguments and substantiated them with documentation! What more do you want?

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

[logroller]

The first "fact" is false. Repeating that argument doesn't change that


Congress shall have the power...to establish a uniform rule of naturalization...to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,

[LuvRPgrl]

SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance (http://www.kmj580.com/pages/landing/?blockID=568756&feedID=806)

”(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to "take the heat" from Republicans for deviating from his party's orthodoxy.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.”


I agree with newt, people are using the illegals to vent and as a scapegoat. Fact is, our economy has ebbed and flowed, from some of our best economic times, and currently our worst, and the illegals situation has been steady during all of those. Its not illegals who affect the economy, I would prefer to evict the liberals, and OWS'ers to Iran.

[LuvRPgrl]

Left wing mantra? That's very special. In case you missed it, I laid out my arguments and substantiated them with documentation! What more do you want?

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

you didnt lay out any arguement, you merely stated your opinions. I mean, I know your smarter than all us and all, but that still doesnt mean your opinion is fact, or any kind of an arguement.

[ConHog]

I agree with newt, people are using the illegals to vent and as a scapegoat. Fact is, our economy has ebbed and flowed, from some of our best economic times, and currently our worst, and the illegals situation has been steady during all of those. Its not illegals who affect the economy, I would prefer to evict the liberals, and OWS'ers to Iran.

Not only is what you say true, how could anyone really think it would be feasible to find and deport 12 million people?

[chloe]

dump them illegals are well illegal.....change future laws on legal immigration but past lawbreakers NO AMNESTY

[LuvRPgrl]

dump them illegals are well illegal.....change future laws on legal immigration but past lawbreakers NO AMNESTY

what alot of people are not aware of is that AMERICA has ALWAYS depended on a cheap labor force.
Slaves
uneducated blacks,
chinese
then in the first half of the 20th century, blacks started to come out of the mode of cheap labor force.

After that, women became a cheap form of labor, really getting under way in WWII
then with womens liberation movement, by the late 70's, women were on their way to equal pay,

well, thats when the illegals really started coming in force.

[johnwk]

Not only is what you say true, how could anyone really think it would be feasible to find and deport 12 million people?And who says 12 million aliens have to be found and deported? If the States were not interfered with as Obama is now doing in court, the State’s who have enacted legislation dealing with the problem would forcefully encourage the 12 million you speak of to begin self deportation!

As Thomas Sowell correctly points out in: The Amnesty Fraud: (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052207.php3)

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

I agree with Mr. Sowell!

Aliens who are caught in a State ought to be punished, perhaps with a sentence to hard labor…cleaning the State’s roadways, painting public buildings and bridges, maintaining the city’s parks, etc., and then giving them a bus ticket out of the State. When the word gets out that getting caught means jail time, hard labor in return for food and board, and then a ticket out of town, instead of medical care, education of their children and other welfare benefits, self deportation seems to be the most obvious option.

In addition, a bounty should be paid by the State for identifying businesses who hire illegal aliens, and if found to have hired an alien without procured sufficient documentation to substantiate the alien is here legally, those who have hired an illegal alien should first receive a heavy fine and a second offense means jail time.

After a few successful prosecutions and sentences are handed out for those who hire illegal aliens, I suspect the job market will dry up for aliens who are here illegally giving them another reason to self deport

The big bluff by our Washington Establishment types and RINOs is, that we cannot round up 11 million illegal aliens and deport them is just that __ a big bluff___ we don’t need to round them all up, we only need to make it very, uncomfortable and impractical for them to stay.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

[LuvRPgrl]

Aliens who are caught in a State ought to be punished, perhaps with a sentence to hard labor…cleaning the State’s roadways, painting public buildings and bridges, maintaining the city’s parks, etc., and then giving them a bus ticket out of the State. When the word gets out that getting caught means jail time, hard labor in return for food and board,
You just described the current conditions for millions of mexicans in the states now.




.

In addition, a bounty should be paid by the State for identifying businesses who hire illegal aliens, and if found to have hired an alien without procured sufficient documentation to substantiate the alien is here legally, those who have hired an illegal alien should first receive a heavy fine and a second offense means jail time.

!
so, you are saying that anyone, ANYONE who looks mexican would have to produce their papers upon demand by police. NO THANKS..What happens if you have an American citizen who looks mexican and isnt carrying, nor has any papers to prove he is legal?
.
not to mention, your plan would put almost everyone in california in prison.
Ca. is by far and away the largest producer of goods than any other state. That includes produce, dairy products. Do you have any idea how your prices for those things would skyrocket?
Yea, I didnt think so, cuz you dont think this thru, instead you lead with your anger over who knows what, and you see the illegals as an easy scapegoat.
.
Not to mention, if we got most of the illegals out in an ordely manner, say over 2 years time, the economy would have a net loss effect.

Lastly, if you would please, write your law down on some paper, then roll it up and stick it up your ass. After all you, and the law are both full of shit, ADOLF. Fuck you and your police state, it is your ilk that the founding fathers revolted against.

[Kathianne]

You just described the current conditions for millions of mexicans in the states now.




so, you are saying that anyone, ANYONE who looks mexican would have to produce their papers upon demand by police. NO THANKS..What happens if you have an American citizen who looks mexican and isnt carrying, nor has any papers to prove he is legal?
.
not to mention, your plan would put almost everyone in california in prison.
Ca. is by far and away the largest producer of goods than any other state. That includes produce, dairy products. Do you have any idea how your prices for those things would skyrocket?
Yea, I didnt think so, cuz you dont think this thru, instead you lead with your anger over who knows what, and you see the illegals as an easy scapegoat.
.
Not to mention, if we got most of the illegals out in an ordely manner, say over 2 years time, the economy would have a net loss effect.

Lastly, if you would please, write your law down on some paper, then roll it up and stick it up your ass. After all you, and the law are both full of shit, ADOLF. Fuck you and your police state, it is your ilk that the founding fathers revolted against.

Until that last part, I was going to rep this and thank it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Until that last part, I was going to rep this and thank it.

oh, too late for me to edit it,,,,
:laugh2:
no, I mean, I didnt say that, it was Bush's fault.

Actually, nothing gets my hair to stand up more than giving the police state more power than they should have, and yea, I was debating whether to post the last part, it was close, but the person who posted it tipped the scales. If it had been someone else, I probably wouldnt have

[chloe]

what alot of people are not aware of is that AMERICA has ALWAYS depended on a cheap labor force.
Slaves
uneducated blacks,
chinese
then in the first half of the 20th century, blacks started to come out of the mode of cheap labor force.

After that, women became a cheap form of labor, really getting under way in WWII
then with womens liberation movement, by the late 70's, women were on their way to equal pay,

well, thats when the illegals really started coming in force.

change the law do some seasonal documented worker program, I don't advocate amnesty for illegals

[Kathianne]

what alot of people are not aware of is that AMERICA has ALWAYS depended on a cheap labor force.
Slaves
uneducated blacks,
chinese
then in the first half of the 20th century, blacks started to come out of the mode of cheap labor force.

After that, women became a cheap form of labor, really getting under way in WWII
then with womens liberation movement, by the late 70's, women were on their way to equal pay,

well, thats when the illegals really started coming in force.

Slavery is a topic unto itself, a war decided that. Reconstruction led to your 3rd point. The 20th C more and less addressed that.

Chinese exploitation was for mostly the railroads and mines at the mid-late 19th C. That too was decided, in the decisions by those oppressed to return to China or not. Those that chose 'not' have done pretty well for the most part.

Women? Got emancipation in 1920, since then? According to college, business results; have beaten their oppressors by more than a smidge.

[LuvRPgrl]

change the law do some seasonal documented worker program, I don't advocate amnesty for illegals

ya know, I dont even pretend to have an answer for this problem, and this is coming from a die hard "know it all":laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Slavery is a topic unto itself, a war decided that. Reconstruction led to your 3rd point. The 20th C more and less addressed that.

Chinese exploitation was for mostly the railroads and mines at the mid-late 19th C. That too was decided, in the decisions by those oppressed to return to China or not. Those that chose 'not' have done pretty well for the most part.

Women? Got emancipation in 1920, since then? According to college, business results; have beaten their oppressors by more than a smidge.

none of those got resolved over night. Slavery ended in 1864, but for nearly a century after, blacks were still severly underpaid. after the civil war it was illegal for them to learn to read or write, if I recall correctly

same thing with the emancipation, some today still think women arent paid fairly

I mention the chinese because when the west/california were being opened up, slavery was non existent basically there, and then to prove my point, with no cheap labor around to build the railroads, guess what they went and did, go half way around the world to find cheap labor to build the RR. The RR was by far and away the single most important thing that allowed expansion. It wouldnt have been financially feasable to build it w/o cheap labor, and it wouldnt have happened.

right now we have the mexicans for cheap labor, its been a constant since day one. Without it, it MAY actually hurt our economy

[fj1200]

ya know, I dont even pretend to have an answer for this problem, and this is coming from a die hard "know it all":laugh:

A die-hard poser is more like it. :poke: Gingrich is probably pretty close though. Create a program that allows business to hire foreign workers legitimately, allow long-term residents with family to stay after documentation, make the new rules stringent enough so the remaining illegals self deport themselves, and then guard the F'ing border.

[ConHog]

dump them illegals are well illegal.....change future laws on legal immigration but past lawbreakers NO AMNESTY


Let's say you do that Chloe. Now lets say that out of those 12 million illegal aliens, even 1% of them have had children born in the US. Those children are as a matter of law US citizens. Now I know some don't agree with them being citizens, I am in fact one such person, but disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact that they ARE citizens. What do you do with them? Tell them to get out and come back when they are 18?

Deportation isn't a reasonable solution, neither is ignoring the problem.

Close and seal the borders. NO MORE illegal immigration period.

If you're here already, you have 30 days to report to an INS office. If you pass a background check you get to pay a fine and start working on becoming a US citizen. If you don't want to pay the fine and or work on becoming a citizen, sayanora. After the 30 days is up if you are caught in this country illegally (and by illegally I mean not on the path to citizenship) then you go to jail.

Yes LUV my plan means EVERYONE would be required to carry their "papers" , those papers being their state ID which under the Real ID Act would mean that a person is a citizen, or at least is on the way to becoming a citizen, IE here legally.

For children of course, any cops that are running around checking ID on children needs to find something better to do with his time.

[johnwk]

Close and seal the borders. NO MORE illegal immigration period.If you're here already, you have 30 days to report to an INS office. If you pass a background check you get to .....

You forget that same essential solution was given to us in 1986 when Gingrich voted for the Reagan amnesty bill. And I remember quite vividly how our establishment RINO crowd belittled conservatives for warning that allowing those who have invaded our borders to stay here would come back to haunt us with millions upon millions more invaders. So tell me, was Gingrich right when he voted for amnesty in 1986? And if not, then why do so many Republicans now suck up to this slithering Washington Establishment snake?

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[ConHog]

You forget that same essential solution was given to us in 1986 when Gingrich voted for the Reagan amnesty bill. And I remember quite vividly how our establishment RINO crowd belittled conservatives for warning that allowing those who have invaded our borders to stay here would come back to haunt us with millions upon millions more invaders. So tell me, was Gingrich right when he voted for amnesty in 1986? And if not, then why do so many Republicans now suck up to this slithering Washington Establishment snake?

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

The borders were closed off in 1986? I must have missed that on the news.

[LuvRPgrl]

Let's say you do that Chloe. Now lets say that out of those 12 million illegal aliens, even 1% of them have had children born in the US. Those children are as a matter of law US citizens. Now I know some don't agree with them being citizens, I am in fact one such person, but disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact that they ARE citizens. What do you do with them? Tell them to get out and come back when they are 18?

Deportation isn't a reasonable solution, neither is ignoring the problem.

Close and seal the borders. NO MORE illegal immigration period.

If you're here already, you have 30 days to report to an INS office. If you pass a background check you get to pay a fine and start working on becoming a US citizen. If you don't want to pay the fine and or work on becoming a citizen, sayanora. After the 30 days is up if you are caught in this country illegally (and by illegally I mean not on the path to citizenship) then you go to jail.

Yes LUV my plan means EVERYONE would be required to carry their "papers" , those papers being their state ID which under the Real ID Act would mean that a person is a citizen, or at least is on the way to becoming a citizen, IE here legally.

For children of course, any cops that are running around checking ID on children needs to find something better to do with his time.

I live a few blocks from the beach. I get on my bike and ride there alot, hang out at the local spots, I shouldnt be required to take my id with me.
I was born here, and unless I do something wrong, a cop has no right to detain me, and I tell them so. When, in fact I have done no wrong, I like to piss em off, and I do. Their egos are bigger than elephants
....they think they are so smart cuz the people they usually deal with are the only other group of idiots that are stupider than them, criminals.
....I hate the idea of them having such power.
I was actually lucky enough to be able to beat a cop down once, and not a damn thing he could do about it, even when the entire skirmish was over, he was pissed at me, I could see it in his bloody face.
.
My very first encounter with cops, I was about 13,14, and they blatantly out and out lied to me and my buds. Funny, they had NO FREAKING CLUE THAT WE KNEW THEY WERE LYING until I looked the cop right in the face and told him he is a big fat liar.
,

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk You forget that same essential solution was given to us in 1986 when Gingrich voted for the Reagan amnesty bill. And I remember quite vividly how our establishment RINO crowd belittled conservatives for warning that allowing those who have invaded our borders to stay here would come back to haunt us with millions upon millions more invaders. So tell me, was Gingrich right when he voted for amnesty in 1986? And if not, then why do so many Republicans now suck up to this slithering Washington Establishment snake?

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

The borders were closed off in 1986? I must have missed that on the news.

You miss a lot of things my friend, including how amnesty was sold in 1986, which included closing down our borders if we allowed the invaders to stay.

JWK

[red states rule]

Newsweek's resident liberal and Obama worshipper Eleanor Clift summed up why the liberal media hates Newt and why they are constantly gunning for him

Hre are many examples of the hate and the liberal media showing their "objectivity"

The answer may surprise you when it comes around the 2:35 mark


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/107785" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[Trigg]

Let's say you do that Chloe. Now lets say that out of those 12 million illegal aliens, even 1% of them have had children born in the US. Those children are as a matter of law US citizens. Now I know some don't agree with them being citizens, I am in fact one such person, but disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact that they ARE citizens. What do you do with them? Tell them to get out and come back when they are 18?

Deportation isn't a reasonable solution, neither is ignoring the problem.

.

This argument always gets me, because it only comes up if people are talking about illegals.

No one makes this arguement when talking about the innocent children of drug dealers, or burglers or any other criminal for that matter. NO one says what about the children? They are simply either taken away or sent to live with family members.

Illegals have the same options given to other people who brake the law. Their children can go with relatives, be taken by the state or leave with their parents.

I don't really care if that sounds hard hearted either. Since, as I mentioned, NO ONE ever uses this argument with the children of other criminals. At least illegals have the option of NOT being separated from their families.

If the gov. would mandate that businesses use e-verify, their would be no need to roundup and deport 12 million illegals, they'd leave on their own when they could no longer find jobs.

[Nukeman]

This argument always gets me, because it only comes up if people are talking about illegals.

No one makes this arguement when talking about the innocent children of drug dealers, or burglers or any other criminal for that matter. NO one says what about the children? They are simply either taken away or sent to live with family members.

Illegals have the same options given to other people who brake the law. Their children can go with relatives, be taken by the state or leave with their parents.

I don't really care if that sounds hard hearted either. Since, as I mentioned, NO ONE ever uses this argument with the children of other criminals. At least illegals have the option of NOT being separated from their families.

If the gov. would mandate that businesses use e-verify, their would be no need to roundup and deport 12 million illegals, they'd leave on their own when they could no longer find jobs.Not to mention NO ONE is taking away the LEGAL status on the minor child. They can be raised with THEIR falmily in the country where the parents are deported to. Now when they turn 18 they can LEGALLY take care of themselves here in the US and are more than welcome to be part of the greatest country on earth. So I have to agree with Trigg, whats the problem here with ENFORCING the LAW....????

[ConHog]

I live a few blocks from the beach. I get on my bike and ride there alot, hang out at the local spots, I shouldnt be required to take my id with me.
I was born here, and unless I do something wrong, a cop has no right to detain me, and I tell them so. When, in fact I have done no wrong, I like to piss em off, and I do. Their egos are bigger than elephants
....they think they are so smart cuz the people they usually deal with are the only other group of idiots that are stupider than them, criminals.
....I hate the idea of them having such power.
I was actually lucky enough to be able to beat a cop down once, and not a damn thing he could do about it, even when the entire skirmish was over, he was pissed at me, I could see it in his bloody face.
.
My very first encounter with cops, I was about 13,14, and they blatantly out and out lied to me and my buds. Funny, they had NO FREAKING CLUE THAT WE KNEW THEY WERE LYING until I looked the cop right in the face and told him he is a big fat liar.
,



Of course a cop doesn't have a right to detain you unless he suspects you've done something wrong; and the same can be said for illegal aliens. In fact all laws I have seen regarding ID checks have specifically said that just checking to see if you're a legal resident is NOT a valid reason to detain people.

[PostmodernProphet]

dump them illegals are well illegal.....change future laws on legal immigration but past lawbreakers NO AMNESTY

and yet, instead of providing a path to citizenship, isn't it logical to provide a path to legality?.....I won't take credit for Gingrich's position, but I will point out it's the same thing I said here over a year ago......we need a method of permitting those who want to work, and those that want to hire workers to get together on American soil, legally......

since it is impossible to locate and deport everyone who didn't come here legally, either we find a way to make them legal or we continue this argument for the next forty years......

[PostmodernProphet]

You forget that same essential solution was given to us in 1986 when Gingrich voted for the Reagan amnesty bill. And I remember quite vividly how our establishment RINO crowd belittled conservatives for warning that allowing those who have invaded our borders to stay here would come back to haunt us with millions upon millions more invaders. So tell me, was Gingrich right when he voted for amnesty in 1986? And if not, then why do so many Republicans now suck up to this slithering Washington Establishment snake?

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

the problem continues because we didn't change the LEGAL immigration policy.......everyone who can find a job should be able to get a work visa, some artificial 64k limit is ridiculous.....

[johnwk]

SEE: Gingrich Gets Endorsement of Influential Conservative Newspaper In New Hampshire (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47771)

The influential New Hampshire conservative newspaper, the Union Leader, endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for president a month before the nation's "first-in-the-nation" primary on Jan. 10, one week after the nation's first nominating contest in Iowa on Jan. 3.

Yup. Newt Gingrich is the conservative’s leader, especially since he wants to allow 8-12 million aliens who have invaded our borders to remain here if they haven’t violated particular laws. But entering our country illegally is not included on the list!

Have we forgotten Gingrich ignored patriotic conservatives in 1986 when they warned him that the amnesty bill he was in favor of would encourage millions of more aliens to invade our borders? Newt Gingrich was wrong then as he is wrong now in proposing to allow 8-12 million more aliens who have invaded our borders to remain here. Only a traitor would allow an invading occupying force [a likely massive voting block for the progressive democrat political party] to remain here.

What some may not take into consideration is, people who have come here the legal way and waited on line, have a far better appreciation for our country than those who invade our borders, and are then treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare benefits.

And I never will forget how this two face snake sided with Jimmy Carter in creating the un-constitutional federal department of education which progressives now use to destroy our country from within, not to mention Gingrich handing Clinton’s NAFTA deal to him on a silver platter which circumvents Congress’ power [the people’s elected representatives] to regulate commerce with Mexico and Canada, and places this power in the hands of Binational Panels (http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-192.asp#An1901.2), not elected by the American People, and a majority of panel members being foreigners who now make binding decisions concerning America’s trade with foreign nations.

Make no mistake, Gingrich has the same gift of gab that Obama has, and like Obama, Newt Gingrich does not have America’s best interests in mind, but has this globalist one world vision in mind where all nations are made interdependent under the NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc., and upon the premise of interdependence, all nations will cease to have wars and live happily ever after because of their interdependence. But last time I checked our founding fathers were strong advocates of independence, and not interdependence!

Why are so many in the Tea Party movement supporting this snake?

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken progressive nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

[fj1200]

blah, blah, blah...

Something new??? please.

[logroller]

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken progressive nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

Wow, I'm dumbfounded--How does one using the phrase 'retained power' have such a clear ignorance of those powers which are enumerated?
If Arizonans believe their state retains such powers, have I got a deal for them on some Arizona ocean-front property so they can provide and maintain a Navy.:coffee:

[ConHog]

Wow, I'm dumbfounded--How does one using the phrase 'retained power' have such a clear ignorance of those powers which are enumerated?
If Arizonans believe their state retains such powers, have I got a deal for them on some Arizona ocean-front property so they can provide and maintain a Navy.:coffee:


You're as mixed up as he is. A state enforcing federal law isn't only legal, it is also MANDATED by the COTUS.

So called sanctuary cities are who is acting illegally (along with the federal government when they choose to not deport those who are caught being here illegally.)

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course a cop doesn't have a right to detain you unless he suspects you've done something wrong; and the same can be said for illegal aliens. In fact all laws I have seen regarding ID checks have specifically said that just checking to see if you're a legal resident is NOT a valid reason to detain people.

cmon, its a known fact that cops detain people and then find a reason to do it.

[ConHog]

cmon, its a known fact that cops detain people and then find a reason to do it.

No sir, it's a well known fact that SOME cops do that. What is a known well fact is that cops will detain KNOWN persons and then find a reason for doing so. IE pull a known drug user over for something like " I couldn't clearly read your tag, by the way you are under arrest for the bag of weed on your back seat."

[jon_forward]

So we somehow send 11 to 12 million illegal aliens back where they came from. No small feat. Who pays for all this? Does anyone remember the rotting. Crops down south because the farmers couldn't. Find laborers to harvest.The crops. Imagine this picture in 50 states. Like it or not they are closely tyed to our economy. Andthey do jobs we don't want to do. Most of em anyway. Is amnesty the answer I don't know but it isn't. Something we can make snap judgments. About ddue t all the vast economic implications. Do I want them here needs to ne replaced with do we NEED them here.

[LuvRPgrl]

No sir, it's a well known fact that SOME cops do that. What is a known well fact is that cops will detain KNOWN persons and then find a reason for doing so. IE pull a known drug user over for something like " I couldn't clearly read your tag, by the way you are under arrest for the bag of weed on your back seat."

there is absolutely nothing in y0ur post that Im ok with.

[LuvRPgrl]

So we somehow send 11 to 12 million illegal aliens back where they came from. No small feat. Who pays for all this? Does anyone remember the rotting. Crops down south because the farmers couldn't. Find laborers to harvest.The crops. Imagine this picture in 50 states. Like it or not they are closely tyed to our economy. Andthey do jobs we don't want to do. Most of em anyway. Is amnesty the answer I don't know but it isn't. Something we can make snap judgments. About ddue t all the vast economic implications. Do I want them here needs to ne replaced with do we NEED them here.

You are on the money with that. Making 12 million leave in a short period of time would be just as disasterous as letting 12 million IN all at once, disaster. IF we remove them, it has to be over time.

[logroller]

You're as mixed up as he is. A state enforcing federal law isn't only legal, it is also MANDATED by the COTUS.

So called sanctuary cities are who is acting illegally (along with the federal government when they choose to not deport those who are caught being here illegally.)

I'm mixed up? See the tenth amendment and Article 1 of the COTUS. Naturalization is an enumerated federal power. Show me where in the COTUS it says States are dutifully bound to enforce federal immigration laws without a federal request to do so-- fugitive extradition is all I'm aware of. And that's only at another state's executive request. If I'm wrong I'd like to know. But I think you're speaking from LE experience, where feds and local cops work together, which I'm sure transpired as a result of a federal request for assistance.

[johnwk]

So we somehow send 11 to 12 million illegal aliens back where they came from. No small feat. Who pays for all this? Does anyone remember the rotting. Crops down south because the farmers couldn't. Find laborers to harvest.The crops. Imagine this picture in 50 states. Like it or not they are closely tyed to our economy. Andthey do jobs we don't want to do. Most of em anyway. Is amnesty the answer I don't know but it isn't. Something we can make snap judgments. About ddue t all the vast economic implications. Do I want them here needs to ne replaced with do we NEED them here.

That was already addressed HERE (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33438-Gingrich-ignores-Constitution-in-illegal-alien-debate-willing-to-take-heat!&p=506943#post506943)


And who says 12 million aliens have to be found and deported? If the States were not interfered with as Obama is now doing in court, the State’s who have enacted legislation dealing with the problem would forcefully encourage the 12 million you speak of to begin self deportation!

As Thomas Sowell correctly points out in: [url=http://

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare state benefits.

I agree with Mr. Sowell!

Aliens who are caught in a State ought to be punished, perhaps with a sentence to hard labor…cleaning the State’s roadways, painting public buildings and bridges, maintaining the city’s parks, etc., and then giving them a bus ticket out of the State. When the word gets out that getting caught means jail time, hard labor in return for food and board, and then a ticket out of town, instead of medical care, education of their children and other welfare benefits, self deportation seems to be the most obvious option.

In addition, a bounty should be paid by the State for identifying businesses who hire illegal aliens, and if found to have hired an alien without procured sufficient documentation to substantiate the alien is here legally, those who have hired an illegal alien should first receive a heavy fine and a second offense means jail time.

After a few successful prosecutions and sentences are handed out for those who hire illegal aliens, I suspect the job market will dry up for aliens who are here illegally giving them another reason to self deport

The big bluff by our Washington Establishment types and RINOs is, that we cannot round up 11 million illegal aliens and deport them is just that __ a big bluff___ we don’t need to round them all up, we only need to make it very, uncomfortable and impractical for them to stay.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

JWK

[logroller]

That was already addressed HERE (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33438-Gingrich-ignores-Constitution-in-illegal-alien-debate-willing-to-take-heat!&p=506943#post506943)

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~ddgarcia/gifs/spam.gif

JWK

:slap:

[ConHog]

I'm mixed up? See the tenth amendment and Article 1 of the COTUS. Naturalization is an enumerated federal power. Show me where in the COTUS it says States are dutifully bound to enforce federal immigration laws without a federal request to do so-- fugitive extradition is all I'm aware of. And that's only at another state's executive request. If I'm wrong I'd like to know. But I think you're speaking from LE experience, where feds and local cops work together, which I'm sure transpired as a result of a federal request for assistance.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, unless you're prepared to argue that states shouldn't even be allowed to enforce federal law without the federal government requesting they do so, you have to admit that this is pretty clear.

[logroller]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, unless you're prepared to argue that states shouldn't even be allowed to enforce federal law without the federal government requesting they do so, you have to admit that this is pretty clear.
Odd you'd use the Federal Supremacy Clause to validate a state's right to enforce a law. I guess it depends on what the law, itself, says:



8 U.S.C. §1252c. Section 1252c originated in the House of Representatives as a floor amendment to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA §439). 62 Section 1252c authorizes the arrest of aliens by state and local officers who have presumably violated §276 of the INA (Reentry of Removed Alien).

Section 1252c(a) states in part:
[T]o the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local
law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual
who —
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and
(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and
deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the
State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such
individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the
Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of
deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

Regarding criminal matters, you are right-- states can enforce arrest illegal aliens, but can't be required to do so(by federal law anyways). Civil violations, however, necessitate special conditions:
CH, you're in Alabama right-- here's a blurb on AL's policies.

Immigration enforcement activities of the officers will be supervised and
directed by ICE special agents, who are located in Huntsville, Birmingham and
Montgomery, Alabama. Such activities can only be performed under direct
supervision of ICE special agents. Arrests made under the authority must be reported
to ICE within 24 hours, and will be reviewed by the ICE special agent on an ongoing
basis to ensure compliance with immigration laws and procedures.source (http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/immigration_enforcement.pdf)

Great source too, long but worth reading if you're curious. I found it well rounded in both history, case law and general debate on immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.

[Trigg]

So we somehow send 11 to 12 million illegal aliens back where they came from. No small feat. Who pays for all this? Does anyone remember the rotting. Crops down south because the farmers couldn't. Find laborers to harvest.The crops. Imagine this picture in 50 states. Like it or not they are closely tyed to our economy. Andthey do jobs we don't want to do. Most of em anyway. Is amnesty the answer I don't know but it isn't. Something we can make snap judgments. About ddue t all the vast economic implications. Do I want them here needs to ne replaced with do we NEED them here.

If e-verify is mandated they will leave on their own, no cost to the American taxpayer.

Most illegals aren't out picking veggies. They're working in the service industry, construction or factories. Jobs Americans WANT and whenever a place like that is raided, LINE UP for.

We dont' need them here, they are here illegally and they NEED TO LEAVE. What exactly are we getting from them?

[ConHog]

If e-verify is mandated they will leave on their own, no cost to the American taxpayer.

Most illegals aren't out picking veggies. They're working in the service industry, construction or factories. Jobs Americans WANT and whenever a place like that is raided, LINE UP for.

We dont' need them here, they are here illegally and they NEED TO LEAVE. What exactly are we getting from them?

I'm sorry, but that is a blanket statement that just isn't true. I could tell you stories upon stories of people around here who are unemployed bitching about the Mexicans taking jobs at Tysons, but Tysons Foods is ALWAYS hiring and yet those folks don't EVER go down and apply. I'm quite confident that isn't an isolated experience.

So , it MAY be true that most would leave if E verify were made the law of the land, but it is also true that there are many jobs that they do which would go unfilled as for some odd reason unemployed Americans by and large are picky about what jobs they will take.

[Nukeman]

I'm sorry, but that is a blanket statement that just isn't true. I could tell you stories upon stories of people around here who are unemployed bitching about the Mexicans taking jobs at Tysons, but Tysons Foods is ALWAYS hiring and yet those folks don't EVER go down and apply. I'm quite confident that isn't an isolated experience.

So , it MAY be true that most would leave if E verify were made the law of the land, but it is also true that there are many jobs that they do which would go unfilled as for some odd reason unemployed Americans by and large are picky about what jobs they will take.Well than obviously those people haven't had it rough yet have they.. If they want to work they will work plain and simple. I am sure for EVERY story you can come up with for those NOT willing to work I can come up with the same or more that have people WILLING to work.

If they are unwilling to work than they are making too much money on unemployment. If they were to make less on unemployment than they would working at Tyson than I can safely say they would WORK..... Now eliminate the CHEAP labor of the illegals and companies will have to pay at least minimum wage.

Do any of you honestly think the illegals that take these jobs will still work them once they become legal. NO THEY WILL NOT, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE BELOW MINIMUM PAY.... They take the shit jobs for less because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE they either take the job or have nothing and can't fight for more due to the fact they are ILLEGAL...

Do you see a recurring theme here, jobs are taken by illegals doing it for less than a citizen due to them being illegal, citizens won't take the job for what they pay the illegals due to them being illegal. illegals have no choice on the jobs and pay due to them being illegal....

[LuvRPgrl]

so, what exactly are you saying?

Well than obviously those people haven't had it rough yet have they.. If they want to work they will work plain and simple. I am sure for EVERY story you can come up with for those NOT willing to work I can come up with the same or more that have people WILLING to work.

If they are unwilling to work than they are making too much money on unemployment. If they were to make less on unemployment than they would working at Tyson than I can safely say they would WORK..... Now eliminate the CHEAP labor of the illegals and companies will have to pay at least minimum wage.

Do any of you honestly think the illegals that take these jobs will still work them once they become legal. NO THEY WILL NOT, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE BELOW MINIMUM PAY.... They take the shit jobs for less because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE they either take the job or have nothing and can't fight for more due to the fact they are ILLEGAL...

Do you see a recurring theme here, jobs are taken by illegals doing it for less than a citizen due to them being illegal, citizens won't take the job for what they pay the illegals due to them being illegal. illegals have no choice on the jobs and pay due to them being illegal....

[ConHog]

Well than obviously those people haven't had it rough yet have they.. If they want to work they will work plain and simple. I am sure for EVERY story you can come up with for those NOT willing to work I can come up with the same or more that have people WILLING to work.

If they are unwilling to work than they are making too much money on unemployment. If they were to make less on unemployment than they would working at Tyson than I can safely say they would WORK..... Now eliminate the CHEAP labor of the illegals and companies will have to pay at least minimum wage.

Do any of you honestly think the illegals that take these jobs will still work them once they become legal. NO THEY WILL NOT, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE BELOW MINIMUM PAY.... They take the shit jobs for less because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE they either take the job or have nothing and can't fight for more due to the fact they are ILLEGAL...

Do you see a recurring theme here, jobs are taken by illegals doing it for less than a citizen due to them being illegal, citizens won't take the job for what they pay the illegals due to them being illegal. illegals have no choice on the jobs and pay due to them being illegal....

Tyson's starting wage up here is $14.50 an hour. Are you implying that if illegals were kicked out of the country that Tysons would raise their wages? I argue that they would not, because people aren't going to want to pay more for chicken.

[fj1200]

Tyson's starting wage up here is $14.50 an hour. Are you implying that if illegals were kicked out of the country that Tysons would raise their wages? I argue that they would not, because people aren't going to want to pay more for chicken.

If they can't attract labor they will raise the pay rates; people will pay more for chicken but they will buy less of it; if Tyson wants to lower the cost of chicken they will employ more capital intensive means of producing their product;;;

There are graphs and curves and shifting of such that can help in analyzing.

[ConHog]

If they can't attract labor they will raise the pay rates; people will pay more for chicken but they will buy less of it; if Tyson wants to lower the cost of chicken they will employ more capital intensive means of producing their product;;;

There are graphs and curves and shifting of such that can help in analyzing.

Of course FJ, I'm just saying that it isn't like they are now paying minimum wage and so kicking out illegals who by the way aren't but a portion of their workforce anyway, isn't going to automatically result in a wage increase for the legal workers.

[fj1200]

^Depends on the percentage. Furthering scarcity leads to increases in price.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're as mixed up as he is. A state enforcing federal law isn't only legal, it is also MANDATED by the COTUS.

which becomes irrelevant if we write a new and more intelligent federal law.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Tyson's starting wage up here is $14.50 an hour. Are you implying that if illegals were kicked out of the country that Tysons would raise their wages? I argue that they would not, because people aren't going to want to pay more for chicken.

if no one will work for $14.50 and Tyson want to sell chicken, then they will raise their starting wage and people will pay more for their chicken.....

[LuvRPgrl]

^Depends on the percentage. Furthering scarcity leads to increases in price.,

In an economy like this, labor pools are much larger than usual. I would be willing to bet that some non union workers would be willing to work for less, but union workers are not given that optionl.

[fj1200]

,

In an economy like this, labor pools are much larger than usual. I would be willing to bet that some non union workers would be willing to work for less, but union workers are not given that optionl.

True, my comment was all things being equal. I don't think Tyson is unionized (CH?) but I would guess the pay scale is pretty well standard for those types of positions.

[ConHog]

which becomes irrelevant if we write a new and more intelligent federal law.....

That's fine, but you don't get to say hey we are going to ignore THIS law while we try to get a new law. The law is the law.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's fine, but you don't get to say hey we are going to ignore THIS law while we try to get a new law. The law is the law.

people have been ignoring that law for 50 years.....they've avoided making any changes in the law for at least 40, (I think the last change was shortly after the Vietnam war to permit more Asian immigrants fleeing communism in the Far East)......I just think it's stupid to say let's spend a couple trillion dollars prosecuting illegal aliens when what we really need to do is create an immigration system that lets people who want to come here and be productive citizens come here and be productive citizens.......

what's the goal?......we want people working jobs in this country instead of across the border somewhere.......we don't want them to be a burden on US taxpayers or health care system......

so, if there's a US employer who wants to hire someone, let them get a work visa as long as the employer is paying them enough that they won't be a burden on taxpayers or the health care system.....charge the employer a fee for letting him bring in a foreign worker and use the fee to cover the costs of overseeing the immigration system.....if everyone who has work can cross the border legally, then there will be far fewer crossing illegally and it will be easier to catch the drug smugglers......

[ConHog]

people have been ignoring that law for 50 years.....they've avoided making any changes in the law for at least 40, (I think the last change was shortly after the Vietnam war to permit more Asian immigrants fleeing communism in the Far East)......I just think it's stupid to say let's spend a couple trillion dollars prosecuting illegal aliens when what we really need to do is create an immigration system that lets people who want to come here and be productive citizens come here and be productive citizens.......

what's the goal?......we want people working jobs in this country instead of across the border somewhere.......we don't want them to be a burden on US taxpayers or health care system......

so, if there's a US employer who wants to hire someone, let them get a work visa as long as the employer is paying them enough that they won't be a burden on taxpayers or the health care system.....charge the employer a fee for letting him bring in a foreign worker and use the fee to cover the costs of overseeing the immigration system.....if everyone who has work can cross the border legally, then there will be far fewer crossing illegally and it will be easier to catch the drug smugglers......

I didn't say I disagreed with your end game. I just said that I disagree with ignoring a law because you don't like it. That is not how our government was designed to function.

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't say I disagreed with your end game. I just said that I disagree with ignoring a law because you don't like it. That is not how our government was designed to function.

govt ignores all kinds of laws, especiallly the ones that put restrictions on their own power and authority.
What would really put a damper on the bad side of illegal immigration, is to make sure only citizens get welfare, of all types.
.
Trying to get rid of all the illegals to solve the problem of govt spending on them is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[ConHog]

govt ignores all kinds of laws, especiallly the ones that put restrictions on their own power and authority.
What would really put a damper on the bad side of illegal immigration, is to make sure only citizens get welfare, of all types.
.
Trying to get rid of all the illegals to solve the problem of govt spending on them is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I agree 100% with that notion. So called entitlements should be reserved for citizens only. Not even people who are becoming citizens, just citizens.

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't say I disagreed with your end game. I just said that I disagree with ignoring a law because you don't like it. That is not how our government was designed to function.

given the fact I disagree with ignoring the law myself I'm not sure why you think it's an argument.....I propose to fix it, not ignore it......