Two things about it. First, I'd trust collective opinion more than a panel. What you call "buying" is money spent on promoting an opinion, on both sides of any issue. Unless you are talking about literally paying for voting certain way, there is nothing wrong with this. The actual buying of votes is more likely when fewer number of people involved so by this argument you should be against a panel because 9 people (5 actually to get a majority) are more easily bought than 100+ MM. Second, the definition of rights is not very concrete. We can easily agree on basic things like voting, marriage, just court process. What about medicine, or driving, or living in US illegally? Is access to latest greatest medical treatment my right? What about driving - I can't feed my family without driving to work, so should I have right to drive? When an illegal is in country for 5 years, does he have the right to be recognized?
You well know where it'll go after the appeal court. It will be in SC and they will be making this decision. So, seriously, would you prefer SC to decide this vs voting? Not trying to trick you into anything, genuinely interested in your opinion.
This is a situation where the checks and balances are working quite well. Amnesty should be voted on by congress, but it wasn't so Obama tried over reaching his powers and doing an executive action. The rule of law is working well here.
If any of you are against executive orders and think they're unconstitutional like the Tea Partiers scream then you're wrong. They're Constitutional. As for the current President who is a Contitutional lawyer himself. Despite the obstructionism he's encountered starting with his very first day in office, he's enacted fewer executive orders than most Presidents including the "great" Ronald Reagan.
Btw as far as executive orders on immigration reform. Both Reagan and Bush 1 had executive orders on it, too. But Republicans and their mouthpieces like Fox News say that's ok. Their solution to the problem: just talk and key words like "protect the border. " What does that mean? Or do they really want to build the Great Wall of China on the Mexican border?
understand the difference and why the courts stopped obamas and yes we need to protect the fucking border fox news! republicans! tea party! omgz! is there a single original thought in that echo chamber of a brain?
The Fed court that stopped it is in an ultra conservative area in Texas. And how much would your Great Wall of China cost?
Respecting Mexican law? Mexico’s Immigration Law Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society: Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32) Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34) Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37) The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38) Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86) A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91). Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned: Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116) Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons: Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says: “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123) Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125) Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126) Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law: A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127) Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
I've been to Mexico and I just walked across the border. Coming back I had to go through a checkpoint. So I don't know what you mean. It's easy going into Mexico. Coming back isn't. Based on what I've read the U.S. is spending more money than ever on border security. More agents etc. It's a big border. There's new technology being used that's improved how they do their work. So where's all this laxness? It's just not true. As for immigration policy. That will be settled in the courts. But how do you deal with 12 million illegals. When it's physically impossible to kick them all out.
Easy to leave, hard to return? Now why would that be? And why is the idea of a sovereign U.S. anathema to you La Raza paladins? edit: getting thread back on track (husband with some major cleveage):
Um, the Constitution explicitly states that everybody born in the US or to a US parent is a citizen of the US. We kicked several million legal US citizens over the border in the 20's and 30's with our mass deportations of Mexican Americans. That means many of the "illegal" immigrants coming back across the border are actually just US citizens trying to reclaim their place in the US. Sooner or later somebody will bring a court case that will establish this.
