Provided you are in the country LEGALLY and pay taxes, I think you should have a say where that money goes. I don't think my dad (an American citizen) is a less valuable member of Canadian society because he's not a citizen of the country.
I completely agree. I have been living in the UK for over 20 years, married to a british man, working and paying my taxes all these years. Yet, I am not allowed to have a say as to who will be at the head of the country and make decisions on how my tax contribution is spent, decisions that will affect me and my family, decisions about our future, etc. This is wrong. Oh... and I'm not after British citizenship, just a say on how the government runs the country.
Why would you not want to become a citizen of the UK if you have been living there for 20 years? I am just wondering why you want to hang on to your American citizenship when you do not live in America.
None Americans voting in America is insane.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
you say your a libertarian but your stances on immigration clearly counteract this...
your nothing but a republican... just like sarah palin
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Provided you are in the country LEGALLY and pay taxes, I think you should have a say where that money goes. I don't think my dad (an American citizen) is a less valuable member of Canadian society because he's not a citizen of the country.
I completely agree. I have been living in the UK for over 20 years, married to a british man, working and paying my taxes all these years. Yet, I am not allowed to have a say as to who will be at the head of the country and make decisions on how my tax contribution is spent, decisions that will affect me and my family, decisions about our future, etc. This is wrong. Oh... and I'm not after British citizenship, just a say on how the government runs the country.
Why would you not want to become a citizen of the UK if you have been living there for 20 years? I am just wondering why you want to hang on to your American citizenship when you do not live in America.
None Americans voting in America is insane.
First of all, I have dual citizenship American/French. And why should I relinquish my birth rights? I don't live and work in the US (or France) but I have done so in the past and may do so in the future and therefore keep my voting rights as laws in these countries still have an impact on my daughter and I.
I agree it is a birth right. Why should Americans give just anyone a birthright that they are not qualified to receive? Yet they can earn that right if they would like to. Yes, it is a hassle but so is getting a drivers license these days.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
you say your a libertarian but your stances on immigration clearly counteract this...
your nothing but a republican... just like sarah palin
"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.
however
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power."
More than half (52%) of Tea Party supporters told pollsters for CBS/New York Times that they think their own "income taxes this year are fair." Additionally, a Bloomberg News poll found that Tea Partiers are not against increased government action in all cases. “The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. “You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case.”
Seventy percent want the federal government to aid in job creation. Also, nearly half think the government should limit Wall Street executive bonuses, according to the nationwide poll which was conducted between March 19 and March 22, 2010.
Many of the movement's members also hold conservative views on social issues such as illegal immigration.
this is for the most part the oppisate of libertarianism, the tea party use libertarianism like religous fundamentalists use the bible, in that they only use the bits that suit them
I agree it is a birth right. Why should Americans give just anyone a birthright that they are not qualified to receive? Yet they can earn that right if they would like to. Yes, it is a hassle but so is getting a drivers license these days.
I don't think anyone is speaking about giving anything to just anyone. Don't you think that someone who is living in the US, has a job, a family, contributes to the economy, participates in the community and, most importantly, pays taxes has earned a right to have a say in things that will have an impact on him/her and his /her family? Like in any country, the US has enough 'citizens' who don't contribute anything to the economy or the community and have that right (which, most probably, they don't use).
I'm not saying any ol' Tom, Dick or Harry should have the right to vote but those that are 'good citizens' in every way but status should. There are a number of reasons one may not choose to become american (ie officially request an american passport), being a full member of the society not being one.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
you say your a libertarian but your stances on immigration clearly counteract this...
your nothing but a republican... just like sarah palin
Oh and BTW you are wrong about the Arizona law. Federal policy set by the Constitution concerns Naturalization. Immigration policy is a State policy. The 10th Amendment says,"that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
Therefore is up to the State to determine its immigration policy.
being illegal does not make a diffeence. nobody is debating that illegal aliens should be able to vote. nobody has stated that. these people have gone through the process and are here LEGALLY, have JOBS, pay TAXES, some are homeowners, and they all have jumped through all of the hoops and barriers that people like you want them to. now you want them to go through the years-long process of becoming full citizens before they can vote in their community elections? we are talking about LEGAL residents in the united states having a right to vote in LOCAL elections...wtf is so wrong about that??
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Oh and BTW you are wrong about the Arizona law. Federal policy set by the Constitution concerns Naturalization. Immigration policy is a State policy. The 10th Amendment says,"that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
Therefore is up to the State to determine its immigration policy.
then why does federal law supercede and have precedence over state laws? why can the supreme court strike down laws passed by states if the states, as you say, have the ultimate authoirty??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Once again I say if someone is setting policy they should have more invested. It should be a part of working to become a citizen. If someone cared that much about policy, they should also care about being a citizen if they are a permanent resident.
If they are temporary they should not determine policy. It is an incentive thing. Citizens ultimately should have the power to determine policy.
Don't get so damn worked up over my opinion. Relax. We see differently on many things. I think my answer, my opinion, is quite clear. It is not meant to offend. It is simply my idea of value and an investment in one's life.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Oh and BTW you are wrong about the Arizona law. Federal policy set by the Constitution concerns Naturalization. Immigration policy is a State policy. The 10th Amendment says,"that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
Therefore is up to the State to determine its immigration policy.
then why does federal law supercede and have precedence over state laws? why can the supreme court strike down laws passed by states if the states, as you say, have the ultimate authoirty??
If the Constitution says that Federal law takes precedent on a particular issue then so be it. Can you show me where it says in the Constitution that the Federal government determines immigration policy?
Please tell me where it ends?
Do any of you Liberals believe anyone on the planet should be able to come and go in the U.S. as they please and get all the rights we get just because they live here? Even though they do so illegally?
Its just not right...
I believe this is the way it should be. Let's get rid of borders and let people come and go as they please and are able. People are people to me.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.
In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.
Nah - benefits that are provided will just be another enticement to attract and maintain citizens. People will go to the most attractive offer. If we get too many people, just start reducing the enticements.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Oh and BTW you are wrong about the Arizona law. Federal policy set by the Constitution concerns Naturalization. Immigration policy is a State policy. The 10th Amendment says,"that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
Therefore is up to the State to determine its immigration policy.
then why does federal law supercede and have precedence over state laws? why can the supreme court strike down laws passed by states if the states, as you say, have the ultimate authoirty??
If the Constitution says that Federal law takes precedent on a particular issue then so be it. Can you show me where it says in the Constitution that the Federal government determines immigration policy?
what about the supremacy clause that the supreme court has invoked several times in our history??
here is one example of the supremacy clause being invoked in a case unrelated to this specific issue, but here is the rationale behind it. i will look for immigration realted cases when i get some time.
Due to the huge differences between the federal and state sanctions, the Court reasoned that enforcement of the state law would "compromise the very capacity of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments." Citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides Congress the authority to pre-empt state laws, the Court struck down the state law because it "stands in the way of Congress's diplomatic objectives."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
There are probably issues that would have that apply to it. I don't believe immigration is one of them. Arizona certainly has different immigration issues than say South Dakota. Would you agree?
There are probably issues that would have that apply to it. I don't believe immigration is one of them. Arizona certainly has different immigration issues than say South Dakota. Would you agree?
i don't know why you keep going back the illegal immigration issue when these people are clearly here legally and went through the steps. seems you are just wanting to argue and show your resentment for those that are here legally but not citizens.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I felt the same when my mom (a Canadian) was in the US legally and could not vote...
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
i don't know why you keep going back the illegal immigration issue when these people are clearly here legally and went through the steps. seems you are just wanting to argue and show your resentment for those that are here legally but not citizens.
I have NEVER said I am against LEGAL immigration that leads to citizenship. I am FOR it. I am AGAINST ILLEGAL immigration.
There are probably issues that would have that apply to it. I don't believe immigration is one of them. Arizona certainly has different immigration issues than say South Dakota. Would you agree?
Not really. Arizona is just the connecting flight. Places in the midwest are the final destination. Agriculture employs a large number of immigrants.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.
Nah - benefits that are provided will just be another enticement to attract and maintain citizens. People will go to the most attractive offer. If we get too many people, just start reducing the enticements.
Without borders...can these people bring with them anything and everything they want?
Without borders...can these people bring with them anything and everything they want?
Sure - as long as it's legal to possess or transport within the country, let them bring it.
Well, that's what I was getting at. So, you think everyone can come, but they are checked at the border for certain things...like plants, etc that could have extremely harmful effects on the eco-system. Just clarifying.
Please tell me where it ends?
Do any of you Liberals believe anyone on the planet should be able to come and go in the U.S. as they please and get all the rights we get just because they live here? Even though they do so illegally?
Its just not right...
It's about as fair as union employees in Nevada rigging the Senate elections in favor of Harry Reid.
Comments
you say your a libertarian but your stances on immigration clearly counteract this...
your nothing but a republican... just like sarah palin
Why would you not want to become a citizen of the UK if you have been living there for 20 years? I am just wondering why you want to hang on to your American citizenship when you do not live in America.
None Americans voting in America is insane.
First of all, I have dual citizenship American/French. And why should I relinquish my birth rights? I don't live and work in the US (or France) but I have done so in the past and may do so in the future and therefore keep my voting rights as laws in these countries still have an impact on my daughter and I.
"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.
however
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power."
More than half (52%) of Tea Party supporters told pollsters for CBS/New York Times that they think their own "income taxes this year are fair." Additionally, a Bloomberg News poll found that Tea Partiers are not against increased government action in all cases. “The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. “You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case.”
Seventy percent want the federal government to aid in job creation. Also, nearly half think the government should limit Wall Street executive bonuses, according to the nationwide poll which was conducted between March 19 and March 22, 2010.
Many of the movement's members also hold conservative views on social issues such as illegal immigration.
this is for the most part the oppisate of libertarianism, the tea party use libertarianism like religous fundamentalists use the bible, in that they only use the bits that suit them
I don't think anyone is speaking about giving anything to just anyone. Don't you think that someone who is living in the US, has a job, a family, contributes to the economy, participates in the community and, most importantly, pays taxes has earned a right to have a say in things that will have an impact on him/her and his /her family? Like in any country, the US has enough 'citizens' who don't contribute anything to the economy or the community and have that right (which, most probably, they don't use).
I'm not saying any ol' Tom, Dick or Harry should have the right to vote but those that are 'good citizens' in every way but status should. There are a number of reasons one may not choose to become american (ie officially request an american passport), being a full member of the society not being one.
Well I know the difference between "your" and "you're".
I also know "you're" wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10 ... -citizens/
Oh and BTW you are wrong about the Arizona law. Federal policy set by the Constitution concerns Naturalization. Immigration policy is a State policy. The 10th Amendment says,"that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people."
Therefore is up to the State to determine its immigration policy.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
then why does federal law supercede and have precedence over state laws? why can the supreme court strike down laws passed by states if the states, as you say, have the ultimate authoirty??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If they are temporary they should not determine policy. It is an incentive thing. Citizens ultimately should have the power to determine policy.
Don't get so damn worked up over my opinion. Relax. We see differently on many things. I think my answer, my opinion, is quite clear. It is not meant to offend. It is simply my idea of value and an investment in one's life.
If the Constitution says that Federal law takes precedent on a particular issue then so be it. Can you show me where it says in the Constitution that the Federal government determines immigration policy?
I believe this is the way it should be. Let's get rid of borders and let people come and go as they please and are able. People are people to me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Nah - benefits that are provided will just be another enticement to attract and maintain citizens. People will go to the most attractive offer. If we get too many people, just start reducing the enticements.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
here is one example of the supremacy clause being invoked in a case unrelated to this specific issue, but here is the rationale behind it. i will look for immigration realted cases when i get some time.
Due to the huge differences between the federal and state sanctions, the Court reasoned that enforcement of the state law would "compromise the very capacity of the President to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments." Citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides Congress the authority to pre-empt state laws, the Court struck down the state law because it "stands in the way of Congress's diplomatic objectives."
http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspape ... ngton.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I have NEVER said I am against LEGAL immigration that leads to citizenship. I am FOR it. I am AGAINST ILLEGAL immigration.
Excuse me while I go pound my head off the wall.
you're right. Fuck veterans benefits. What have they done, anyway??? And who cares about starving children??? USA!!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!
:roll:
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
maybe you'll get some sense knocked into you :P
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Not really. Arizona is just the connecting flight. Places in the midwest are the final destination. Agriculture employs a large number of immigrants.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Without borders...can these people bring with them anything and everything they want?
THat's clearly what unsung meant. :roll:
Man, people have lost the ability to read and comprehend and only look to be outraged anymore. And oh so dramatic too!!!
Sure - as long as it's legal to possess or transport within the country, let them bring it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well, that's what I was getting at. So, you think everyone can come, but they are checked at the border for certain things...like plants, etc that could have extremely harmful effects on the eco-system. Just clarifying.
It's about as fair as union employees in Nevada rigging the Senate elections in favor of Harry Reid.
Wow, big surprise.