Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
9:26 PM | 
Posted by
kender
More bullshit!
Arizona voters, you know those people that live here legally (hopefully) and DO have a say in what happens here, voted, by an overwhelming majority, for Prop. 200, an anti-illegal immigrant law that will essentially deny ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS access to STATE benefits. Federal benefits would still be covered. It also requires state workers to verify legal status of those applying for benefits and report to INS those that are here illegally.
Couching their language in PC speak by calling these federal lawbreakers "undocumented immigrants", MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona.
The judge said, among other things: "It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law, it would have a dramatic, chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law,"
I want them to have a chilling effect. I want them to be so chilled that they head south so they can warm up while they are waiting for a work visa...you know, the legal way to come here?
What kind of BS is this? This is an American judge, who is sworn to uphold the law. The law states that illegally coming here is a crime, and a federal one at that. If I break a federal law you can bet that the government is going to put me, and American citizen, in FEDERAL PRISON!!!!
"... MALDEF, claimed Proposition 200 turns state employees into immigration agents, denies benefits covered by federal law and could discourage thousands of Arizonans from voting."
VOTING??? What Arizonans would be discouraged from voting? The illegal ones? What the hell are they doing voting in the first place?
So it would turn state employees into immigration agents? If a state employee thought I was committing fraud by getting benefits when I am not entitled to them then they would call the police and have me arrested right? So why is it that illegal immigrants are getting special treatment for breaking a federal law?
"Attorneys sued on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs, including undocumented immigrants, their children, and state employees from the Valley and Tucson."
State employees? So if they won't report people that are here illegally would they report me if I went to Arizona and got benefits like welfare to live on while actually still living in California? I just may have to try that. As for suing on behalf of "undocumented immigrants" that shouldn't be here in the first place? Great strategy.
I think I will go to another country and have one of their lawyers sue their government on my behalf to get benefits that I shouldn't be getting in the first place. I think I will try mexico first.
Arizona voters, you know those people that live here legally (hopefully) and DO have a say in what happens here, voted, by an overwhelming majority, for Prop. 200, an anti-illegal immigrant law that will essentially deny ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS access to STATE benefits. Federal benefits would still be covered. It also requires state workers to verify legal status of those applying for benefits and report to INS those that are here illegally.
Couching their language in PC speak by calling these federal lawbreakers "undocumented immigrants", MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona.
The judge said, among other things: "It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law, it would have a dramatic, chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law,"
I want them to have a chilling effect. I want them to be so chilled that they head south so they can warm up while they are waiting for a work visa...you know, the legal way to come here?
What kind of BS is this? This is an American judge, who is sworn to uphold the law. The law states that illegally coming here is a crime, and a federal one at that. If I break a federal law you can bet that the government is going to put me, and American citizen, in FEDERAL PRISON!!!!
"... MALDEF, claimed Proposition 200 turns state employees into immigration agents, denies benefits covered by federal law and could discourage thousands of Arizonans from voting."
VOTING??? What Arizonans would be discouraged from voting? The illegal ones? What the hell are they doing voting in the first place?
So it would turn state employees into immigration agents? If a state employee thought I was committing fraud by getting benefits when I am not entitled to them then they would call the police and have me arrested right? So why is it that illegal immigrants are getting special treatment for breaking a federal law?
"Attorneys sued on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs, including undocumented immigrants, their children, and state employees from the Valley and Tucson."
State employees? So if they won't report people that are here illegally would they report me if I went to Arizona and got benefits like welfare to live on while actually still living in California? I just may have to try that. As for suing on behalf of "undocumented immigrants" that shouldn't be here in the first place? Great strategy.
I think I will go to another country and have one of their lawyers sue their government on my behalf to get benefits that I shouldn't be getting in the first place. I think I will try mexico first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Pretty much agreed. If you are in the States illegally, you shouldn't receive any benefits (since you are not supporting them with taxes) other than perhaps hospitalization in life/death situations. If you come here illegally, the only benefit you should receive is the benefit of living in a country with more opportunity than the one you came from - including the opportunity to become a legal citizen which should be done ASAP. Still, the best course is to get a work visa and do it all the legal way.
This comment especially: "could discourage thousands of Arizonans from voting" is stupid. You know what discourages me from voting? When laws that are passed by the people - no matter how much I may disagree with them - are overturned by courts or lawmakers. In Colorado we have an issue with medical marijuana. The people of Colorado passed this measure to allow medical marijuana and ever since then, the politicians of this state have been fighting it at every turn to the point where the new law is almost worthless. This kind of thing discourages me from voting because it makes you think "What's the point?" If they're just going to fight the will of the people. (By the way, I have never smoked so much as one puff of anything so don't think that is why I support it.)
I may strongly disagree with gay marraige bans in some states, but at least its being handled at a state level where it should be handled. It gives people options of where to live to be able to live how you would like. The states courts of Arizona should recognize the will of the people and allow this new law or they should try to get it changed in the next general election if that is their wish.
I have never lit one up either, but I support Med. Marijuana laws...and I also strongly disagree with gay marriage bans. Marriage should be solely a LEGAL contract. Like a corporation. Imagine all the duties, rights and responsibilities spelled out..(I take out the trash and keep the credit card paid and you do me happily whenever I need it)...the list of possibilities go on from there.
See, you're more liberal than you give yourself credit for! :-)
Just kidding. What we really ought to do, IMO, is get rid of marraige all together as a government supported institution. Make everything that has to do with government and legal unions (tax breaks, benefits, etc.) only accessible through civil unions. Leave marraige as a religious arrangement and celebration. That way, people can have their marraiges and not feel like the institution of marraige is changed by allowing same sex marraiges and everyone is treated equally under the law.
Sorry for the MARRIAGE misspellings. I'm apparently dyslexic today.
K1...I am actually starting to like you....one of us should be worried:D
Actually those are almost my exact thoughts on marriage, with the exception of drawing it up like a corporate charter. That would give you the ability of bringing in a new "partner" for a temporary "position":D
And I am in reality a fairly hardcore libertarian. Fiscally conservative, (my money in my pocket) and personally liberal (You do who and what you want and I will do who and what I want).
Could it be we have come to a concensus? I also agree that States shuld be allowed to do what the citizens desire, so long as when they leave the state they know they need to check whether the behavior they had as a right in one state is allowed in another.
I think we pretty much have - especially since I think Kender is mostly joking about his corporate charter idea.
Kender. Libertarianism is a really good political theory, one that I would actually wholly support...if... I thought that people could handle it. Unfortunately, I don't think the human race in general or Americans are mature enough to handle it. Some political ideas work okay if not everyone agrees, i.e. Liberal vs. Conservative. However, any political idea that requires other peoples cooperation to function doesn't work well until everyone (or a very large majority) is on the same page: Communism, Libertarianism, Socialism.
Anyway, its a great idea...just not very feasible at this time. Someday hopefully.
No, really I am not joking about the charter idea. My wife wishes I were, and she hates it, but having everything spelled out would be a great way to stop alot of arguments and maybe save some of these "corporations" from "dissolving". Seriously. And I really am Libertarian. And I believe that alot of people are that don't realize it. I think most people in this country want their money in thier pocket and the governments nose out of most everybodies private business. Check the worlds smallest political quiz, although methinks you have both taken it.
BTW guys, this is what I love about blogs and comments. No name calling, some good give and take, and friendly discussion. I know some folks that could learn from it. And Nixon? Thanks, Soldier.
Was going to reply today, but I have to go and have a killer busy weekend so its gonna have to be Monday. Have a good weekend!
This reply won't be nearly as good as the first one I wrote - the one that I finished writing just as my computer crashed...argh...
Anyway, while I do not doubt your assertion that most people want to keep their money and not give it to the government, I do not think it is from any high minded ideal that they could do better good with it than the govt. can. Rather, I think this is still based on regular greed and a dissatisfaction with governmental waste and corruption. We are not ready of libertarianism because if implemented today, it would create an even larger gap between the haves and the have nots, among other issues.
I did take the smallest quiz. It put me in the liberal section, but only one square away from libertarian.
On marriage: most relationships have problems that could be solved by a contract because they do not communicate well. Since I do not know how to make people communicate better, I suppose a contract is as good a suggestion as any. That or some sort of required communication course to be taken before getting married.
Here I come to the party to ruin everything...too much hugging going on...:-)
you said:
"Anyway, while I do not doubt your assertion that most people want to keep their money and not give it to the government, I do not think it is from any high minded ideal that they could do better good with it than the govt. can. Rather, I think this is still based on regular greed and a dissatisfaction with governmental waste and corruption"
Why does it have to be greed and corruption? Why can't it be that you want to keep what you have EARNED? Keep what is YOURS. If keeping what is yours is your definition of greed, then I'd have to question the quality of education you are getting.
So I was kinda with you until you said that. I understand the immigrants are trying to support their families and are looking for a better life. What kind of citizens of this country would they make if we encourage lawlessness by giving them benefits? We need to escort them across the border the first time, and each time they come back move them back another 500 miles until we are dropping them off on the other side of the Panama Canal.
But that's just me.
Actually that is a great idea RG....I liek that drop them off gig...can we literally 'drop' them?
Post a Comment