Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by daskakik
when the state suffers injury or loss its responability is to the soverign men and woman of that state before consideration is given to anyone or anything else (the constitution says the state MUST provide for the soverigns FIRST)
when the law was enacted it was to show the states responce to their consitutional responability to the people of that state first
this forces federal govenment to do something or loose the illusion of durisdiction
it is about using state law to trump federal law in an effort to get something done about the problem so the state doesnt get sued by the people
XPLodER
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by daskakik
when the state suffers injury or loss its responability is to the soverign men and woman of that state before consideration is given to anyone or anything else (the constitution says the state MUST provide for the soverigns FIRST)
when the law was enacted it was to show the states responce to their consitutional responability to the people of that state first
this forces federal govenment to do something or loose the illusion of durisdiction
it is about using state law to trump federal law in an effort to get something done about the problem so the state doesnt get sued by the people
XPLodER
I totally agree with you. What is even better is that us immigration law agrees with you. And, not as good but still, ICE is deporting illegals (not saying alot much less enough but they are deporting). 2 problems though.
1. Unsecure border = deported illegals back soon.
2. Immigration law doesn't matter to illegals.
Here is US immigration law:
Chapter 8
It's rather large but no where in any of it have I read that someone in the US illegaly gets to stay without proving that they will face danger if deported.
Not low wages, poor housing or poor social services but actual political prisoner, torture and/or death dangers.
If found they will be deported but see #1 above.
The laws are there and they are even being enforced (could be better) but until the border is secure it is all pointless.
As to Mexican immigration law since 2008 illegal immigration has been decriminalized and seeing that half a million illegal immigrants flow through it every year from central and south american countries I would say it's undraconian enough.
What some of its citizens are saying though is
enough with the double standard. If you want to come live here, do so legally, jsut as our citizens do when they move to mexico or where ever.Originally posted by NumberNone
reply to post by K J Gunderson
KJ - If we concede the case that asking for ID just because we suspect someone is illegal is wrong, can we now ask for citizenship when someone is asking for the use of public services?
Can we now ask for proof of citizenship for social services and public schools use?
How about when someone wants to visit a National Park?
Do the illegal immigrants have rights to these services?
Does the Constituation prevent the asking of ID's for these reasons?
Now I'm sure we get back into the debate that law enforcement should be the one's handling immigration right?
But not local law or state law...only Federal law enforcement?
But what if the state and local officials determine the Federal officials are not doing their jobs? Thus we are where we are today grasping for a solution and none being provided by the Federal Government.
Lastly, the audacity of Mexico to declare a travel ban on AZ is beyond belief. Mexico has the most stringent immigrant laws in the world. They only want you there if you can benefit the country. We should declare an immediate travel ban to Mexico from the US until they repeal this. See Article 67:
news.yahoo.com...
At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."
too.
