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?
Unsung, it's clearly listed right above the same line which states how the Federal government can force the people to buy health insurance.
You may as well go bang your head off that wall. I'll join you.
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.
Excuse me while I go pound my head off the wall.
but you ARE against these people that are here LEGALLY and want to vote is LOCAL ELECTIONS...unless they choose to become citizens. many times they do not want to become citizens though. there are many reasons for and against becoming a citizen. especially if you may move back to your native country at some point. nobody can predict if they will ever need to go back home. you have complained about them voting in this thread right here....
"by unsung » 27 Oct 2010 09:03
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."
or are you going to change your postition again??
reading through your post history in many immigration threads you truely post like a firebrand and take the anti immigrant position to the extreme in every case. it is clear that you seem to not want anyone to emigrate to the united states and you want to make it harder for them to vote on LOCAL issues that affect them and their community, of which they are contributing members of the society by paying taxes and contributing to the economy. if they are paying taxes to fund projects like local roads, police and fire services, and trash pickup then they should have a say. they are not voting in statewide or national elections so you do not have to worry about them influencing outcomes of those state or national elections..
Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
and here is an article from a constitutional law scholar saying how the arizona law may be struck down by the supreme court and might be in violations of the supremacy clause.
April 28, 2010 Arizona's Immigration Law, Supremacy, and Federal Preemption
Does Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070, violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution? It may, in (at least) two ways.
First, Arizona's immigration law, which authorizes state and local law enforcement officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States," runs up against the comprehensive federal scheme in Title 8 U.S.C. that governs treatment of aliens. Congress enacted Title 8 pursuant to its plenary power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States." The federal scheme reflects Congress's judgment to completely occupy the field of immigration and naturalization (with an important exception, discussed below)--a judgment that is well within its powers until Article I, Section 8--and the comprehensive federal scheme therefore likely preempts Arizona's new law. The new law is almost certainly invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
But even if Arizona's new law doesn't fall under field preemption, it almost certainly falls under conflict preemption. The federal immigration and naturalization scheme includes a place for state and local authorities. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c reads:
(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 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.
(b) Cooperation. The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
The provision contemplates a circumscribed role for state and local officials, to be sure, but the Arizona law authorizes a much broader role. Particularly: The Arizona law authorizes arrest without a showing of a prior felony, the requirement under (a)(2), above. Here's the provision from SB 1070:
E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
An alien's unauthorized presence in the United States is just such an offense under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227. Arizona's law is thus in conflict with the federal law and likely violates the Supremacy Clause under conflict preemption.
This isn't the first time that Arizona law came under challenge as running up against federal immigration law. Just last year, the Ninth Circuit in Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano upheld Arizona's Legal Worker Act against a preemption challenge. That act allows Arizona courts to revoke or suspend business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens. But there the federal law, which prohibited employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, contained a specific savings clause that exempted state and local sanctions related to licensing from the broader preemption of state enforcement. Arizona's law in that case fell squarely within this savings clause, and the court ruled that the Legal Worker Act was therefore not preempted. (The Ninth Circuit also took its lead from De Canas v. Bica, the 1976 Supreme Court case that upheld a state law prohibiting employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, because the employment relationship is "within the mainstream of the state's police powers.")
The new law is different. It regulates aliens directly, not by way of the employer-employee relationship (which is more obviously within the traditional powers of the state). And the new law doesn't fall within a savings clause to a broader preemption provision; instead, it seems to run directly up against the corresponding federal law.
We've posted previously on the Arizona law here and here. Jack Balkin posts his thoughts on preemption here; Jonathan Adler responds here.
UPDATE: The law as enacted addresses some of these problems, but it does not solve them. Thus, for example, Section B. requires "any lawful stop, detention or arrest" (not merely "any lawful contact") by a law enforcement official "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state" (not merely for no reason) in order to trigger the "reasonable suspicion" standard. This helps dodge the second conflict problem above (under the old section E. and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227), but not the first one (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c). And it does nothing to dodge the field preemption problem.
Other sections of the law, too, are likely preempted under field and conflict theories. Thus Sections C. and D. authorize state officials to securely transport an unauthorized alien to federal authorities upon release from state prison or on the assessment of any monetary fine. This, too, runs up against 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, because it does not require a felony or deportation or departure from the country, and violates field preemption. Section F. authorizes the state to maintain immigration records for certain purposes; this, too, probably violates field preemption.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
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.
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
Godfather.
green card or visa= documented immigrant, legal to live and work here.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
Godfather.
Yeah, you can be legally here without even applying for citizenship. For instance, if you moved to Canada, you would apply for a permanent resident card.
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
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
check out the regs on legal, non-citizens serving in the military. If you die in combat, they award you posthumous citizenship. Fat lotta good that does.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
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 guess when it gets to the Supreme Court (it will) we will all find out.
Until then I could not find anywhere in the Constitution that says the Federal Government determines immigration policy.
My father isn't a citizen of canada, he's a PR... and he's been here for over 20 years... and he angrily screams at the TV when the refs make a bad call during the hockey game, just as any other Canadian.
live pearl jam is best pearl jam
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
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...
acoustic guys up to his tricks again. the article talks about "legal immigrants". not illegals.
some of you are getting all fired up about the legal immigrants being able to vote and "talking about illegals being able to vote. can't you read?
you are so damn deep into your hate for the illegals that you can't even read or think straight. getting your panties in a bunch because they might be able to vote. the article doesn't even talk about illegals voting.
personally i'm more concerned that people like you are allowed to vote. you can't even comprehend a simple sentence without turning it into something it's not. and you get to vote. no wonder the country is so screwed.
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.
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
Godfather.
It's a very long and expensive process. Becoming a legal resident takes several years, and involves paying a ton of fees, filling out a ton of forms, and going through medical exams and in-person interviews. In the ultimate example of government inefficiency, you get your fingerprints taken by the exact same people three times - and you have to pay a fee each time (just in case your fingerprints change, I guess). While you are in the process of becoming a legal resident (i.e. the time between filing your first form and eventually receiving your green card) you have temporary status, which means if you want to leave the country you have to give U.S. immigration plenty of notice, and you can only leave for a certain period of time. It's called "advance parole" (because nothing makes you feel welcome like the government letting you out on parole haha), and if you leave without requesting it first - even in the case of an emergency, such as having to fly to your home country because a family member died - the immigration department can take you out of the system and make you start the entire process all over again. Anyway, long story short, it takes several years to become a permanent resident.
Even then, the term "permanent" is misleading. You're not allowed to remain permanently, and you still can't leave the country for any extended period of time. Your status has to be renewed periodically (every 10 years or so I think), and if you go overseas for too long you won't be allowed to return. Take my wife and I for example: I'm from New Zealand, and she's from America. We live in Louisiana, and I'm a permanent resident. If we decide we want to take a break and move to New Zealand for a few years to work and enjoy the slower pace of life, we can't - or else I'd lose my residency.
The "solution" is citizenship, which you're eligible for a few years after you become a resident. There are more fees and paperwork (of course), and in addition to the fact that you can't leave the U.S. during the time leading up to that, there's also a state residency requirement that says you have to live in one particular state for at least three months before you are eligible. Without checking my details, I believe I am eligible for citizenship next February. Louisiana is in a massive hole financially, and as a state employee (I work for Louisiana State University) I face the prospect of losing my job next year because instead of trying to fix the problem our governor, Bobby Jindal, is flying all over the country trying to raise his profile for a potential run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016 (he loves flying so much he takes a helicopter to church. Seriously). As a result, my wife and I are both applying for jobs all over the place - we're jumping before we get pushed. We're looking at New Zealand as an option, and we also have a shortlist of U.S. states we'd like to move to. If we move to another state in the next few months for work, it will push my citizenship back as I'll have to live in that new state for a period of time before I'm eligible.
However, citizenship isn't a perfect solution either. The U.S. government asks anyone applying for citizenship to give up their original citizenship, and while they can't legally force you to do so, I believe they have agreements with a lot of countries around the world (NZ isn't one of them) that will essentially revoke your original citizenship the day you pledge allegiance to the U.S. during your ceremony. That might not have been a big deal decades ago when people traveled by steamship and it was a hassle to move, but in 2010 it's a (relative) cinch to move between (most) countries. However, the citizenship process makes that harder. If I become a U.S. citizen it means I get to vote in elections, and I don't have to ask anyone's permission when I leave the country. Those are really the only differences between citizenship and residency. But, if I did come from a country that revoked my citizenship when I became a U.S. citizen, that would make it hard for me to return to my home country again for any length of time. If NZ was one of those countries, and my wife and I decided we wanted to move to NZ to live there because the standard of living is higher and the education system is better, I'd have to go through a ton of paperwork on the NZ end and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits NZ citizens do - despite being born and raised there. Dual citizenship is a great idea and makes perfect sense in an era when people can travel between countries easily, but not all countries have the same arrangements. I'm lucky in that NZ is such a non-offensive country people don't usually blacklist us, so my wife and I don't have to make a lifelong commitment to one country over the other - which is good, since we love both countries.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
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.
Wow, big surprise.
...
"Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax assured the news station that there was no monkey business with the machines and explained that the screens are simply extremely sensitive. With cameras rolling, he showed that if anyone had an advantage it would be Angle, whose name gets checked off if a voter clicks the English option too many times or if his or her finger lingers too long on the opening screen."
Cajunkiwi, wow ! I had no idea it was such a process to become a citizen of the US, I wish you and your wife the best and hope all turns out good for you both.
It's a very long and expensive process. Becoming a legal resident takes several years, and involves paying a ton of fees, filling out a ton of forms, and going through medical exams and in-person interviews. In the ultimate example of government inefficiency, you get your fingerprints taken by the exact same people three times - and you have to pay a fee each time (just in case your fingerprints change, I guess). While you are in the process of becoming a legal resident (i.e. the time between filing your first form and eventually receiving your green card) you have temporary status, which means if you want to leave the country you have to give U.S. immigration plenty of notice, and you can only leave for a certain period of time. It's called "advance parole" (because nothing makes you feel welcome like the government letting you out on parole haha), and if you leave without requesting it first - even in the case of an emergency, such as having to fly to your home country because a family member died - the immigration department can take you out of the system and make you start the entire process all over again. Anyway, long story short, it takes several years to become a permanent resident.
Even then, the term "permanent" is misleading. You're not allowed to remain permanently, and you still can't leave the country for any extended period of time. Your status has to be renewed periodically (every 10 years or so I think), and if you go overseas for too long you won't be allowed to return. Take my wife and I for example: I'm from New Zealand, and she's from America. We live in Louisiana, and I'm a permanent resident. If we decide we want to take a break and move to New Zealand for a few years to work and enjoy the slower pace of life, we can't - or else I'd lose my residency.
The "solution" is citizenship, which you're eligible for a few years after you become a resident. There are more fees and paperwork (of course), and in addition to the fact that you can't leave the U.S. during the time leading up to that, there's also a state residency requirement that says you have to live in one particular state for at least three months before you are eligible. Without checking my details, I believe I am eligible for citizenship next February. Louisiana is in a massive hole financially, and as a state employee (I work for Louisiana State University) I face the prospect of losing my job next year because instead of trying to fix the problem our governor, Bobby Jindal, is flying all over the country trying to raise his profile for a potential run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016 (he loves flying so much he takes a helicopter to church. Seriously). As a result, my wife and I are both applying for jobs all over the place - we're jumping before we get pushed. We're looking at New Zealand as an option, and we also have a shortlist of U.S. states we'd like to move to. If we move to another state in the next few months for work, it will push my citizenship back as I'll have to live in that new state for a period of time before I'm eligible.
However, citizenship isn't a perfect solution either. The U.S. government asks anyone applying for citizenship to give up their original citizenship, and while they can't legally force you to do so, I believe they have agreements with a lot of countries around the world (NZ isn't one of them) that will essentially revoke your original citizenship the day you pledge allegiance to the U.S. during your ceremony. That might not have been a big deal decades ago when people traveled by steamship and it was a hassle to move, but in 2010 it's a (relative) cinch to move between (most) countries. However, the citizenship process makes that harder. If I become a U.S. citizen it means I get to vote in elections, and I don't have to ask anyone's permission when I leave the country. Those are really the only differences between citizenship and residency. But, if I did come from a country that revoked my citizenship when I became a U.S. citizen, that would make it hard for me to return to my home country again for any length of time. If NZ was one of those countries, and my wife and I decided we wanted to move to NZ to live there because the standard of living is higher and the education system is better, I'd have to go through a ton of paperwork on the NZ end and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits NZ citizens do - despite being born and raised there. Dual citizenship is a great idea and makes perfect sense in an era when people can travel between countries easily, but not all countries have the same arrangements. I'm lucky in that NZ is such a non-offensive country people don't usually blacklist us, so my wife and I don't have to make a lifelong commitment to one country over the other - which is good, since we love both countries.
see this is what a lot of people wanting everyone here to become a citizen does not understand. if it were easy people might do it, but if i had to jump through all of these hoops i think i would stay in my home country. what a pain in the butt...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
“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
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
...
Driving is a privilege and not a right. At least, we know that difference.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
...
But, has come to be expected.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
Than you can vote...and I hope you do!
“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
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
Than you can vote...and I hope you do!
...
But... he admitted... he is a foriegner. You said we didn't know the difference... so, what is the difference? Are you now saying you think 'foriegners' should vote?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
...
Driving is a privilege and not a right. At least, we know that difference.
I don't believe that and never have but thats what the state of california will have you believe so that they can take a much money as they can for that RIGHT, who told you/us it was a privilege..thats bullshit in my opinion.
The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner.
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
...
Driving is a privilege and not a right. At least, we know that difference.
I don't believe that and never have but thats what the state of california will have you believe so that they can take a much money as they can for that RIGHT, who told you/us it was a privilege..thats bullshit in my opinion.
Godfather.
...
Simple.
If it were a right... it would mean that everyone that is born here has the right to drive, correct?
Then, why aren't we given Drivers Licenses? And where does the Constitution say we have a right to drive? Where is your federal drivers license? And if it were a right, wouldn't it be unconstitutional to revoke or suspend your drivers license? Also... wouldn't blind people have the RIGHT to drive?
...
If it is a privilege... it would have to be granted to you after you meet certain obligations. One of those obligations would be to apply for a drivers license from the issuing state. The state and its courts can revoke or suspend/restrict your driving privileges if you abuse it.
...
And yes... you can say it is bullshit, in your opinion. Your opinion does not have to be true or founded in fact and remain a complete fabrication that only exists in the confines of your intellect.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
Than you can vote...and I hope you do!
...
But... he admitted... he is a foriegner. You said we didn't know the difference... so, what is the difference? Are you now saying you think 'foriegners' should vote?
He also said he is a citizen.
“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
...
And there is your conundrum...
"The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner."
- aerial
He is a Citizen... who you say CAN vote...
He is a Foreigner... who you say should not be allowed to vote.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
And there is your conundrum...
"The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner."
- aerial
He is a Citizen... who you say CAN vote...
He is a Foreigner... who you say should not be allowed to vote.
Definition of FOREIGNER
1: a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country
2chiefly dialect : one not native to a place or community : stranger 1c
Definition of CITIZEN
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
“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
Comments
Unsung, it's clearly listed right above the same line which states how the Federal government can force the people to buy health insurance.
You may as well go bang your head off that wall. I'll join you.
"by unsung » 27 Oct 2010 09:03
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."
or are you going to change your postition again??
reading through your post history in many immigration threads you truely post like a firebrand and take the anti immigrant position to the extreme in every case. it is clear that you seem to not want anyone to emigrate to the united states and you want to make it harder for them to vote on LOCAL issues that affect them and their community, of which they are contributing members of the society by paying taxes and contributing to the economy. if they are paying taxes to fund projects like local roads, police and fire services, and trash pickup then they should have a say. they are not voting in statewide or national elections so you do not have to worry about them influencing outcomes of those state or national elections..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw ... ption.html
April 28, 2010
Arizona's Immigration Law, Supremacy, and Federal Preemption
Does Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070, violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution? It may, in (at least) two ways.
First, Arizona's immigration law, which authorizes state and local law enforcement officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States," runs up against the comprehensive federal scheme in Title 8 U.S.C. that governs treatment of aliens. Congress enacted Title 8 pursuant to its plenary power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States." The federal scheme reflects Congress's judgment to completely occupy the field of immigration and naturalization (with an important exception, discussed below)--a judgment that is well within its powers until Article I, Section 8--and the comprehensive federal scheme therefore likely preempts Arizona's new law. The new law is almost certainly invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
But even if Arizona's new law doesn't fall under field preemption, it almost certainly falls under conflict preemption. The federal immigration and naturalization scheme includes a place for state and local authorities. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c reads:
(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 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.
(b) Cooperation. The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
The provision contemplates a circumscribed role for state and local officials, to be sure, but the Arizona law authorizes a much broader role. Particularly: The Arizona law authorizes arrest without a showing of a prior felony, the requirement under (a)(2), above. Here's the provision from SB 1070:
E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
An alien's unauthorized presence in the United States is just such an offense under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227. Arizona's law is thus in conflict with the federal law and likely violates the Supremacy Clause under conflict preemption.
This isn't the first time that Arizona law came under challenge as running up against federal immigration law. Just last year, the Ninth Circuit in Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano upheld Arizona's Legal Worker Act against a preemption challenge. That act allows Arizona courts to revoke or suspend business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens. But there the federal law, which prohibited employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, contained a specific savings clause that exempted state and local sanctions related to licensing from the broader preemption of state enforcement. Arizona's law in that case fell squarely within this savings clause, and the court ruled that the Legal Worker Act was therefore not preempted. (The Ninth Circuit also took its lead from De Canas v. Bica, the 1976 Supreme Court case that upheld a state law prohibiting employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, because the employment relationship is "within the mainstream of the state's police powers.")
The new law is different. It regulates aliens directly, not by way of the employer-employee relationship (which is more obviously within the traditional powers of the state). And the new law doesn't fall within a savings clause to a broader preemption provision; instead, it seems to run directly up against the corresponding federal law.
We've posted previously on the Arizona law here and here. Jack Balkin posts his thoughts on preemption here; Jonathan Adler responds here.
UPDATE: The law as enacted addresses some of these problems, but it does not solve them. Thus, for example, Section B. requires "any lawful stop, detention or arrest" (not merely "any lawful contact") by a law enforcement official "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state" (not merely for no reason) in order to trigger the "reasonable suspicion" standard. This helps dodge the second conflict problem above (under the old section E. and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227), but not the first one (under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c). And it does nothing to dodge the field preemption problem.
Other sections of the law, too, are likely preempted under field and conflict theories. Thus Sections C. and D. authorize state officials to securely transport an unauthorized alien to federal authorities upon release from state prison or on the assessment of any monetary fine. This, too, runs up against 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, because it does not require a felony or deportation or departure from the country, and violates field preemption. Section F. authorizes the state to maintain immigration records for certain purposes; this, too, probably violates field preemption.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
sorry for jumping in the middle of the topic, what does it mean to be here legally but not a citizen ?
is there part of the citizenship process that has a time issue or something ?
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
check out the regs on legal, non-citizens serving in the military. If you die in combat, they award you posthumous citizenship. Fat lotta good that does.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Until then I could not find anywhere in the Constitution that says the Federal Government determines immigration policy.
My father isn't a citizen of canada, he's a PR... and he's been here for over 20 years... and he angrily screams at the TV when the refs make a bad call during the hockey game, just as any other Canadian.
Never.
some of you are getting all fired up about the legal immigrants being able to vote and "talking about illegals being able to vote. can't you read?
you are so damn deep into your hate for the illegals that you can't even read or think straight. getting your panties in a bunch because they might be able to vote. the article doesn't even talk about illegals voting.
personally i'm more concerned that people like you are allowed to vote. you can't even comprehend a simple sentence without turning it into something it's not. and you get to vote. no wonder the country is so screwed.
It's a very long and expensive process. Becoming a legal resident takes several years, and involves paying a ton of fees, filling out a ton of forms, and going through medical exams and in-person interviews. In the ultimate example of government inefficiency, you get your fingerprints taken by the exact same people three times - and you have to pay a fee each time (just in case your fingerprints change, I guess). While you are in the process of becoming a legal resident (i.e. the time between filing your first form and eventually receiving your green card) you have temporary status, which means if you want to leave the country you have to give U.S. immigration plenty of notice, and you can only leave for a certain period of time. It's called "advance parole" (because nothing makes you feel welcome like the government letting you out on parole haha), and if you leave without requesting it first - even in the case of an emergency, such as having to fly to your home country because a family member died - the immigration department can take you out of the system and make you start the entire process all over again. Anyway, long story short, it takes several years to become a permanent resident.
Even then, the term "permanent" is misleading. You're not allowed to remain permanently, and you still can't leave the country for any extended period of time. Your status has to be renewed periodically (every 10 years or so I think), and if you go overseas for too long you won't be allowed to return. Take my wife and I for example: I'm from New Zealand, and she's from America. We live in Louisiana, and I'm a permanent resident. If we decide we want to take a break and move to New Zealand for a few years to work and enjoy the slower pace of life, we can't - or else I'd lose my residency.
The "solution" is citizenship, which you're eligible for a few years after you become a resident. There are more fees and paperwork (of course), and in addition to the fact that you can't leave the U.S. during the time leading up to that, there's also a state residency requirement that says you have to live in one particular state for at least three months before you are eligible. Without checking my details, I believe I am eligible for citizenship next February. Louisiana is in a massive hole financially, and as a state employee (I work for Louisiana State University) I face the prospect of losing my job next year because instead of trying to fix the problem our governor, Bobby Jindal, is flying all over the country trying to raise his profile for a potential run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016 (he loves flying so much he takes a helicopter to church. Seriously). As a result, my wife and I are both applying for jobs all over the place - we're jumping before we get pushed. We're looking at New Zealand as an option, and we also have a shortlist of U.S. states we'd like to move to. If we move to another state in the next few months for work, it will push my citizenship back as I'll have to live in that new state for a period of time before I'm eligible.
However, citizenship isn't a perfect solution either. The U.S. government asks anyone applying for citizenship to give up their original citizenship, and while they can't legally force you to do so, I believe they have agreements with a lot of countries around the world (NZ isn't one of them) that will essentially revoke your original citizenship the day you pledge allegiance to the U.S. during your ceremony. That might not have been a big deal decades ago when people traveled by steamship and it was a hassle to move, but in 2010 it's a (relative) cinch to move between (most) countries. However, the citizenship process makes that harder. If I become a U.S. citizen it means I get to vote in elections, and I don't have to ask anyone's permission when I leave the country. Those are really the only differences between citizenship and residency. But, if I did come from a country that revoked my citizenship when I became a U.S. citizen, that would make it hard for me to return to my home country again for any length of time. If NZ was one of those countries, and my wife and I decided we wanted to move to NZ to live there because the standard of living is higher and the education system is better, I'd have to go through a ton of paperwork on the NZ end and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits NZ citizens do - despite being born and raised there. Dual citizenship is a great idea and makes perfect sense in an era when people can travel between countries easily, but not all countries have the same arrangements. I'm lucky in that NZ is such a non-offensive country people don't usually blacklist us, so my wife and I don't have to make a lifelong commitment to one country over the other - which is good, since we love both countries.
"Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax assured the news station that there was no monkey business with the machines and explained that the screens are simply extremely sensitive. With cameras rolling, he showed that if anyone had an advantage it would be Angle, whose name gets checked off if a voter clicks the English option too many times or if his or her finger lingers too long on the opening screen."
Ref. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... chine.html
Hail, Hail!!!
Godfather.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
American citizens have a right to vote. None citizens do not. Now if a none citizen wants to vote than they need to follow the proper procedures.....Just because they live here for years means nothing as far as voting goes. They know if they want to keep there foreign citizenship they will not have the right to vote. Plain and simple!
I have been driving for 40 years Why the hell do I have to get a drivers license, I know how to drive…GET IT!
Driving is a privilege and not a right. At least, we know that difference.
Hail, Hail!!!
Im a foreigner and a citizen. What an ignorant comment.
But, has come to be expected.
Hail, Hail!!!
But... he admitted... he is a foriegner. You said we didn't know the difference... so, what is the difference? Are you now saying you think 'foriegners' should vote?
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't believe that and never have but thats what the state of california will have you believe so that they can take a much money as they can for that RIGHT, who told you/us it was a privilege..thats bullshit in my opinion.
Godfather.
Simple.
If it were a right... it would mean that everyone that is born here has the right to drive, correct?
Then, why aren't we given Drivers Licenses? And where does the Constitution say we have a right to drive? Where is your federal drivers license? And if it were a right, wouldn't it be unconstitutional to revoke or suspend your drivers license? Also... wouldn't blind people have the RIGHT to drive?
...
If it is a privilege... it would have to be granted to you after you meet certain obligations. One of those obligations would be to apply for a drivers license from the issuing state. The state and its courts can revoke or suspend/restrict your driving privileges if you abuse it.
...
And yes... you can say it is bullshit, in your opinion. Your opinion does not have to be true or founded in fact and remain a complete fabrication that only exists in the confines of your intellect.
Hail, Hail!!!
And there is your conundrum...
"The Problem here is some of you do not know the difference between an American citizens and foreigner."
- aerial
He is a Citizen... who you say CAN vote...
He is a Foreigner... who you say should not be allowed to vote.
Hail, Hail!!!
Definition of FOREIGNER
1: a person belonging to or owing allegiance to a foreign country
2chiefly dialect : one not native to a place or community : stranger 1c
Definition of CITIZEN
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it