Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Immigration Immigration Political Forum - For topics and discussions about illegal immigrants and immigrant rights


Thanks Tree19Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10th, 2018, 02:15 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,605
Goober means peanut in Georgia and Goob is a short way to say Goober.
Twisted Sister is online now  
Old January 10th, 2018, 03:37 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,605
Goob has obviously worked at a packing plant but what kind of packing plant? I seriously doubt that Goober ever pushed foot pedal of Thor which is press that forged turbine blades. Thor could be heard from miles around.
Twisted Sister is online now  
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:41 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Take your mind off of immigration for a moment. Do you think it wise that state and local governments begin the practice of enforcing federal statutory laws?

I'm not asking you IF they do it. They do. I'm asking if you think that is a wise course of action.
They are not enforcing, they are cooperating. Its a big difference. Its the same thing as me murdering someone in Virginia then getting arrested in North Carolina for it. North Carolina is not enforcing Virginia's homicide law, they are just cooperating.
Thanks from TreeDoc
guy39 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 07:00 AM   #24
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
They are not enforcing, they are cooperating. Its a big difference. Its the same thing as me murdering someone in Virginia then getting arrested in North Carolina for it. North Carolina is not enforcing Virginia's homicide law, they are just cooperating.
We can argue semantics all day long, but here is an excerpt from a recent article that explains my concerns:

"The Trump administration may not want to hear it, but sanctuary cities are protected by both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. For starters, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States (1997), “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

In other words, Trump’s executive order flunks the 10th Amendment test that Scalia spelled out in Printz. State and local officials have every right to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws
."

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/0...ctuary-cities/

The people who are focused on the immigration issue are blind as a bat and cannot separate their views on immigration from legal precedents.

I think if you read the above article, it explains how a precedent may be used to bring about a result you had not anticipated. It leaves me with repeating the words of one of our founding fathers:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Richard Mack, who was one of the principal plaintiffs in the Printz case told me if he had known they would use that precedent in favor of the sanctuary cities, he would not have gone to court in the first place. In other words, he would have supported gun control provided we could pass laws that would negatively impact undocumented foreigners. He and I... and maybe you and I won't be in agreement over this. But, I still have to ask how much government control you want when an issue may be better served when approached at the local level?
discollector is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 08:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
We can argue semantics all day long, but here is an excerpt from a recent article that explains my concerns:

"The Trump administration may not want to hear it, but sanctuary cities are protected by both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. For starters, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States (1997), “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

In other words, Trump’s executive order flunks the 10th Amendment test that Scalia spelled out in Printz. State and local officials have every right to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws
."

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/0...ctuary-cities/

The people who are focused on the immigration issue are blind as a bat and cannot separate their views on immigration from legal precedents.

I think if you read the above article, it explains how a precedent may be used to bring about a result you had not anticipated. It leaves me with repeating the words of one of our founding fathers:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Richard Mack, who was one of the principal plaintiffs in the Printz case told me if he had known they would use that precedent in favor of the sanctuary cities, he would not have gone to court in the first place. In other words, he would have supported gun control provided we could pass laws that would negatively impact undocumented foreigners. He and I... and maybe you and I won't be in agreement over this. But, I still have to ask how much government control you want when an issue may be better served when approached at the local level?
I do not believe you can dismiss this as mere semantics, furthermore issues of immigration affect every one. There is a difference between not enforcing federal law and refusing to cooperate and offering sanctuary to those who flagrantly violate it. The case you cited was merely stating that the local law enforcement did not want to get involved with the background checks and record keeping for a federal system. I think that is somewhat different that openly defying federal law and offering sanctuary to those who violate it. It is interesting point though
Thanks from webguy4 and Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 07:00 AM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
I do not believe you can dismiss this as mere semantics, furthermore issues of immigration affect every one. There is a difference between not enforcing federal law and refusing to cooperate and offering sanctuary to those who flagrantly violate it. The case you cited was merely stating that the local law enforcement did not want to get involved with the background checks and record keeping for a federal system. I think that is somewhat different that openly defying federal law and offering sanctuary to those who violate it. It is interesting point though
The liberals would have made the same, exact case had the Assault Weapon Ban have gotten renewed and some states decided not to enforce it while civilians owned weapons. You are arguing semantics. You have to consider the precedent you're setting.

The real issue is, and has never been acknowledged, is that the political right cannot differentiate or delineate between guests that come into the United States to work and people who come into the United States to become citizens. There should never be a requirement NOR the expectation that one become a citizen in order to exercise the fundamental Rights of Liberty and Freedom while participating in the free market.

I am completely opposed to the notion that one must become a citizen in order to have unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights cannot and should not be conflated to imply citizenship.

Aside from that, whether you call it enforcement or not, if states are forced to be federal LEOs, you set the stage for an absolute POLICE STATE and a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

When we separate the benefits and privileges of citizenship from the Right of people to engage in a free market, we soon learn there are not enough negative effects from people coming into the United States to work jobs willingly offered to justify jeopardizing our own Rights and Liberties.

Last edited by discollector; January 12th, 2018 at 07:03 AM.
discollector is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 10:58 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 3,618
[QUOTE=discollector;1133061]The liberals would have made the same, exact case had the Assault Weapon Ban have gotten renewed and some states decided not to enforce it while civilians owned weapons. You are arguing semantics. You have to consider the precedent you're setting.

Quote:
The real issue is, and has never been acknowledged, is that the political right cannot differentiate or delineate between guests that come into the United States to work and people who come into the United States to become citizens. There should never be a requirement NOR the expectation that one become a citizen in order to exercise the fundamental Rights of Liberty and Freedom while participating in the free market.
A non citizen who is in the United States for whatever reason is a guest. Unless they are here illegally. Then they are in violation of the law. They have the same rights as the person in your home stealing your stuff does.
Quote:
I am completely opposed to the notion that one must become a citizen in order to have unalienable Rights. Unalienable Rights cannot and should not be conflated to imply citizenship
.
I am not for the USA being the police of the world. So what are you advocating for? Everyone that crosses the border has the full protection and rights, citizenship be damned? Or make the world America? Neither one is a good idea.
Quote:
Aside from that, whether you call it enforcement or not, if states are forced to be federal LEOs, you set the stage for an absolute POLICE STATE and a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
You mean like every time a seat belt ticket is issued?
Quote:
When we separate the benefits and privileges of citizenship from the Right of people to engage in a free market, we soon learn there are not enough negative effects from people coming into the United States to work jobs willingly offered to justify jeopardizing our own Rights and Liberties.
I am not sure why you keep coming back to participate in the free market. The only thing that comes to mind is your attempting to say we need a peasant class of undocumented workers to clean our bathrooms. Your just trying to paint it up really nice.
Thanks from TreeDoc
guy39 is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 12:14 AM   #28
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Take your mind off of immigration for a moment. Do you think it wise that state and local governments begin the practice of enforcing federal statutory laws?

I'm not asking you IF they do it. They do. I'm asking if you think that is a wise course of action.
I agree w/ your premise but there is one very important part of the illegal problem that makes me see the point of locals enforcing the elimination of them. They have a direct negitive effect on the taxpayers. They eat up federal resources.

The federal government extracts wealth from the people.then redistributes it to noncitizens. Until an end is put to this then i feel that it is the duty of local Leos to protect the people.from this theft.
Sabcat is online now  
Old January 13th, 2018, 06:49 AM   #29
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
I agree w/ your premise but there is one very important part of the illegal problem that makes me see the point of locals enforcing the elimination of them. They have a direct negitive effect on the taxpayers. They eat up federal resources.

The federal government extracts wealth from the people.then redistributes it to noncitizens. Until an end is put to this then i feel that it is the duty of local Leos to protect the people.from this theft.
This is of course, a myth.

In defending Liberty, I'm always being put into the untenable position of defending people that aren't that important to me personally.

The facts are that most people who come here from foreign countries and do not have papers still pay taxes. Most of them get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the freaking taxes. That part of this debate is a non-issue. Study upon study (both at the state and federal levels) comes back to say that undocumented workers pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. You have to bear in mind that they pay $12 BILLION DOLLARS yearly into Socialist Security and cannot draw a dime back out in retirement. That alone is a large chunk of any federal income taxes they would be obligated to pay.

The only federal resources that are costing us is the enforcement of laws that the AMERICANS have no respect for. NOBODY is twisting your arm and forcing you to shop at Walmart nor are they forcing you to hire these people to do low wage jobs.

The reality is, and NOBODY can deny it, that a lot of jobs that these foreigners take are not being claimed by Americans because they will not work them. I'll be damned if I pay Bubba a surgeon's wages to do a job it took him a whopping six months to learn. Most low wage workers would rather wash dishes for $10 an hour than to be entrepreneurial enough to go around the neighborhood, offering to cut grass for $20 an hour. They'll work for Bubba for $10 an hour - and Bubba will charge you $50 or $60 an hour. But, most Americans won't work independently of corporate masters.

We are doing nothing except telling low wage workers that employers owe them a job AND a high wage for neglecting their education. We're a nation that would rather put those with emotional issues (like the phony condition of ADD / ADHD or autistic people) on drugs rather than create programs to get them before employers and claim some of those positions.

Rather than take other avenues to resolve the symptoms you claim to be concerned about, you are advocating building a bigger and more intrusive government. You are advocating building a government that imposes conditions on us that jeopardize OUR fundamental Liberties.
discollector is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 06:59 AM   #30
Put some ice on that
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
This is of course, a myth.

In defending Liberty, I'm always being put into the untenable position of defending people that aren't that important to me personally.

The facts are that most people who come here from foreign countries and do not have papers still pay taxes. Most of them get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the freaking taxes. That part of this debate is a non-issue. Study upon study (both at the state and federal levels) comes back to say that undocumented workers pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. You have to bear in mind that they pay $12 BILLION DOLLARS yearly into Socialist Security and cannot draw a dime back out in retirement. That alone is a large chunk of any federal income taxes they would be obligated to pay.

The only federal resources that are costing us is the enforcement of laws that the AMERICANS have no respect for. NOBODY is twisting your arm and forcing you to shop at Walmart nor are they forcing you to hire these people to do low wage jobs.

The reality is, and NOBODY can deny it, that a lot of jobs that these foreigners take are not being claimed by Americans because they will not work them. I'll be damned if I pay Bubba a surgeon's wages to do a job it took him a whopping six months to learn. Most low wage workers would rather wash dishes for $10 an hour than to be entrepreneurial enough to go around the neighborhood, offering to cut grass for $20 an hour. They'll work for Bubba for $10 an hour - and Bubba will charge you $50 or $60 an hour. But, most Americans won't work independently of corporate masters.

We are doing nothing except telling low wage workers that employers owe them a job AND a high wage for neglecting their education. We're a nation that would rather put those with emotional issues (like the phony condition of ADD / ADHD or autistic people) on drugs rather than create programs to get them before employers and claim some of those positions.

Rather than take other avenues to resolve the symptoms you claim to be concerned about, you are advocating building a bigger and more intrusive government. You are advocating building a government that imposes conditions on us that jeopardize OUR fundamental Liberties.

Nope. Im advocating for the abolition of entitlement programs including the federal education department and the minimum wage.
Sabcat is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Tags
show, state



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swing State Polls Show Close Race Between Clinton, Trump excalibur Current Events 17 June 21st, 2016 09:16 AM
Showdown in the "Show Me" State LongWinded Current Events 0 September 14th, 2015 03:11 PM
FACT SHEET: The Economic Case for Increasing the Minimum Wage: State by State Impact The White House The White House 0 March 20th, 2014 09:10 AM
Plan To Repeal Doma State By State Ray Kaye Gay and Lesbian Rights 2 April 7th, 2011 01:36 AM
Boehner a no-show at White House state dinner msnbc.com Current Events 3 January 22nd, 2011 10:58 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.