Letting noncitizens vote?????

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

How many illegal aliens are in Canada?

I'm guessing it isn't quite the same as the US.

Apples to oranges.

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??

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

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??

unsung

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.

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

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?

know1

acoustic guy wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

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.

unsung

In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.

know1

unsung wrote:

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.

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

unsung wrote:

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."

http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspape ... ngton.html

unsung

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?

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

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.

keeponrockin

unsung wrote:

How many illegal aliens are in Canada?

I'm guessing it isn't quite the same as the US.

Apples to oranges.

I felt the same when my mom (a Canadian) was in the US legally and could not vote...

unsung

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

arthurdent

unsung wrote:

In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.

you're right. Fuck veterans benefits. What have they done, anyway??? And who cares about starving children??? USA!!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!


:roll:

arthurdent

unsung wrote:

Excuse me while I go pound my head off the wall.

maybe you'll get some sense knocked into you :P

arthurdent

unsung wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

unsung wrote:

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?

cincybearcat

arthurdent wrote:

unsung wrote:

In order to get rid of borders this country must first get rid of all forms of welfare.

you're right. Fuck veterans benefits. What have they done, anyway??? And who cares about starving children??? USA!!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!


:roll:

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!!!

know1

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

know1 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

Electric_Delta

acoustic guy wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

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.