CA State Senator says she represents both citizens AND non citizens!

[JoeEpcotRocks]

And all of those issues could be lessened if we eliminated ILLEGAL immigration. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those issues.

And, as I have stated, I am only against ILLEGAL immigration. Do it LEGALLY, and I am ok with it.

I can not for the life of me understand how ANYBODY except ILLEGAL immigrants can think otherwise.

You nailed it. ITA

 

[Papa Deuce]

Correct me if I'm wrong Papa Deuce, but I think what Papa Deuce is trying to say is that if Osama Bin Laden wanted to immigrate to the US the gov. wouldn't let him. We don't want criminals to immigrate to the US, that's who we want to keep out. If I'm wrong Papa Deuce please correct me.

Well you are correct, but I add more. I am not in favor of letting anybody in who just wants a handout. Be willing to give as well as recieve. If you want to come, then CONTRIBUTE.... Then I am ok with immigration.

 

[Shugardrawers]

In all seriousness, is it really that hard to come here legally? Why would a person choose to sneak across the border rather than going through the proper channels? Dh's first wife was from Chile and she doesn't seem to have had too hard a time and they weren't even married when she came here. So what's the problem? Is it expensive? Too much red tape? What?

 

[Papa Deuce]

So it seems to me your problem isn't just with illegal immigration. Is that correct? OK - so would you be in favor of legal letting in anybody who has a job lined up?

I would be in favor of MANY / MOST that have a job lined up that pays taxes.

 

[wvrevy]

I would be in favor of MANY / MOST that have a job lined up that pays taxes.

And it's your contention that the 12 MILLION illegals living here (assuming that number is correct) are all freeloaders living off of welfare and foodstamps?

Sorry, but no, "solving" the immigration "problem" would do nothing to combat inner city poverty, nor would it force the medical industry to charge reasonable prices, nor would it stop widowed grandmothers from having to choose between food and medicine, nor would it stop terrorists trying to get into this country to do us harm (how many of the 9/11 hijackers were "illegals" ?). There are bigger fish to fry than poor mexicans moving here to take jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder. Stopping them from doing so will not help anyone.

 

[sodaseller]

Thsi will only be relevant to Christians, but Bishop Robert Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg had the following exhortation in his Chrism Mass homily and in his "Out of the Ordinary" Column in the Diocesan edition of The Florida Catholic

If I have a fear for the Church in this moment of history, it is that we may just have lost a portion of our soul, a portion of the Spirit. Under assault, we may have chosen to remain quiet in the midst of the world, content to administer the sacraments and avoid ruffling feathers. Is it not possible that the Church and perhaps even we ordained have become too comfortable, too rich in a way, that we are no longer either the voice or stewards of the Church for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the vulnerable, the naked and the imprisoned.

Let me offer three examples from the current moment as a litmus test as to whether or not we truly, ecclesially and individually reflect the caritas Christi. In this local Church, there are approximately 115,000 illegals. For the most part they are working, for below subsistence wages and because of their illegal status they are not accessing social services. They are in baptism overwhelmingly our brothers and sisters in the faith. Where are our voices against the proposed draconian legislation passed by the House of Representatives which in its present form could make this diocese and me a felon for our mobile health car van moving among the camps providing minimal primary medical care? Where is our vocal support for Father Demetrio Lorden and Our Lady of Guadalupe parish, whose whole parish can be deported if this legislation passes. All of our priests and religious are at risk if they choose to offer the love of Christ to an illegal and so are our dedicated generous lay women and men.

The legislation which has passed one chamber and is under current consideration in the Senate could bring about the destruction of families among the illegals and in its present form it will criminalize many of our historical works of mercy among our brothers and sisters. There is no one word of acknowledgment of the contribution to our lives and to our society of these brothers and sisters, hermanas y hermanos. This legislation in its present form makes a mockery of all America stands for and suggests that perhaps we should chisel new words into Emma Lazarus’ famous greeting on the statue of liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, unless they come from Mexico or some other Central American country. Where my brothers are our voices? Are we afraid? Do we fear risking the ire of those whose minds are settled by a few afternoon radio talk shows? Where is the spirit of the Lord? I beg you to stand with the Church of immigrants to seek a more realistic, far less draconian solution that upholds the dignity of every human person and the unity of every family

 

[Jabber_Jaws]

Sorry, but no, "solving" the immigration "problem" would do nothing to combat inner city poverty, nor would it force the medical industry to charge reasonable prices, nor would it stop widowed grandmothers from having to choose between food and medicine, nor would it stop terrorists trying to get into this country to do us harm (how many of the 9/11 hijackers were "illegals" ?). There are bigger fish to fry than poor mexicans moving here to take jobs at the bottom of the economic ladder. Stopping them from doing so will not help anyone.

Facts? Figures? Anything to back up your opinion? How do you know it will do nothing to stop all you described? You don't know. Also it is not only mexicans that are here as illegals. They come from all countries, so don't racial profile.

 

[sodaseller]

I believe she is supposed to represent constituents.

Constituents: a member of a constituency


Constituency: a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position)

Amendment XV to the Constitution

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Amendment XIV

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The drafters of te 14th understood the disintiction - though the P&I clause has largely been read out of existence by the Slaughterhouse cases, it is clear that lawmakers have legal obligations to all persons, not just citizens

 

[sodaseller]

Some interesting insights from John Judis

Link

Are illegal immigrants breaking the law? The answer to this question isn't quite as simple as it seems. Many laws are based on commonly held moral views about the protection of life and property. People sometimes argue about what constitutes theft or murder, but acknowledging an act as theft or murder is equivalent to condemning it and to prescribing punishment for those who have committed it.

There are other laws, however, that reflect majority opinion about what is good for society, but are defied by large groups or communities within the society. Laws governing sex, drinking, and drugs fit this category. So, too, do laws defining legal and illegal immigration from Mexico. The continuing protests by Latinos and other Americans, including high officials of the Catholic Church, against the House bill that would make crossing the border without papers a felony is a clear indication that many Americans don't believe that the immigration laws are good for society. They might admit that the people they call "undocumented workers" have broken a law, but they would not say they have done anything wrong and should be punished.

That doesn't mean the Bishop of Los Angeles is right and Tom Tancredo is wrong. But it does mean that our immigration laws, like our laws regulating sexual behavior, lack a moral consensus. The fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law isn't sufficient to justify new punishments against them. The question is whether the laws should be revised rather than enforced.

Immigration law was originally adopted to regulate the flow of immigrants who migrated from Europe to become citizens of the United States. The Immigration Act of 1891 referred explicitly to immigrants arriving "by water." There were special laws regulating the importation of Chinese labor into the West Coast in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. But the United States did not regulate Mexican immigration in a similar manner. And there was a good reason why it didn't.

The Southwest and California were once part of Mexico. In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States gained these territories, and later states, by conquest. Spanish-speaking Mexicans had always lived in these lands, and over the next century Mexicans would cross the border freely for jobs in the United States. They took seasonal low-wage jobs in agriculture that still paid much higher than comparable jobs in Mexico. Some remained and became citizens, but most returned regularly to Mexico. The lack of border regulation reflected the longstanding relationship between the two neighboring countries. The flow of immigrants from Mexico to the United States was driven by Mexico's relatively lower wages and by the demand in the United States for cheap labor, particularly in agriculture and mining.

When Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, it recognized that Mexico was different. The act set restrictive quotas on immigrants by national origin, but these quotas did not apply to Mexico and Latin America. In the 1960s, however, a liberal Congress began passing immigration legislation that failed to acknowledge this special relationship. And the results were disastrous.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the Eurocentric quotas of the 1924 act, but in so doing set quotas for Mexican and Latin American immigration that while equal to those from Europe, nonetheless would have, if enforced, drastically reduced the flow of immigrants from South of the border. By ignoring the underlying relationship between Mexico and the United States, the act unwittingly created a new class of criminal: the illegal alien. Over the next 20 years, illegal immigrants from Mexico exceeded legal immigrants by about twenty-to-one.

The outcry over illegal immigration inspired Congress to attempt to restrict the flow on the border. It dramatically upped spending on border control in 1986, 1991, and 1996. But the results were perverse. Illegal immigrants continued to pour across the border--now, increasingly, over the less regulated Arizona desert--but fearful that they couldn't get back into the United States if they returned to Mexico, began staying in the United States permanently. So the recent laws not only didn't stop the flow of illegal immigration, they also helped to create a permanent underclass of undocumented workers. The laws changed the reality in the United States--for the worse

 

[Papa Deuce]

And it's your contention that the 12 MILLION illegals living here (assuming that number is correct) are all freeloaders living off of welfare and foodstamps?
/QUOTE]

1. Ya still can't debate my other point.

2. I didn't say the above... YOU DID.

3. It is a verifiable fact that a good portion of money made in the US by illegals gets shipped back to Mexico, hence, it never gets spent in the USA. BTW, I was told that by 2 Mexicans working for my landscaper.... that they themselves do it. Now I do not know if they are ILLEGALS.

BTW, I am not just against Mexican ILLEGALS, but ALL ILLEGALS.... see, that is because they are illegally here....

 

[Bravosntha2g]

Anybody who represents ILLEGALS does not get my vote. Simple as that.

I'd agree with you, but seeing from your sig you support that no-talent, faking dumbness, getting by on looks and acting alone fool Kellie Pickler I can't support your opinion. No one can be that dumb. She went to a good high school in a wealthy suburban area, she knows what "on paper," and "ballsy" mean. I can't believe the public is voting off people like Mandisa and maybe Elliott and letting talentless jabronis like Kellie and Ace stay on.

I would agree with you if you could at least support someone with a real personality and real talent like Elliott, Paris, and Taylor.

 

[Papa Deuce]

I'd agree with you, but seeing from your sig you support that no-talent, faking dumbness, getting by on looks and acting alone fool Kellie Pickler I can't support your opinion. No one can be that dumb. She went to a good high school in a wealthy suburban area, she knows what "on paper," and "ballsy" mean. I can't believe the public is voting off people like Mandisa and maybe Elliott and letting talentless jabronis like Kellie and Ace stay on.

I would agree with you if you could at least support someone with a real personality and real talent like Elliott, Paris, and Taylor.

Makes sense.......