Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
August 23, 2014, 04:48:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat(1)  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Unconstitutional?  (Read 7013 times)
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5433


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2010, 08:41:48 AM »

Keith ,that is dead on right. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens when the federal government has failed to do so. We are United States,seperate the words into states that are united on common grounds with individual sovereignties.(spelling?)
Logged
Storm
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 72

Location: Oklahoma


« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2010, 10:55:43 AM »

Agreed, Keith & buzzbee.  Our founding fathers believed in the sovereignty of the state,  So do I.  And yes, of course they should protect us when the federal govt. fails.
Logged
bugleman
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 106


Location: Oregon, Aloha, Willamette Valley


« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2010, 12:46:36 PM »

Just remember:

The states get thier power from the people.  The people formed a compact which directed the entity they created - the state.

The states then give power to the United States who was told what it could do through a constitution.  If it isn't performing, or is over reaching, then the people have the power to alter, reform or abolish as they see fit.
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2010, 02:13:52 PM »

I keep wondering who at the pentagon has a solid bead on what a "domestic enemy" to the constitution is.   I would think election fraud and dereliction of expressed duties would make for solid charges, but I think the guy in charge of watching for that has probably been distracted some way.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
CountryBee
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 329


Location: Central, NY


« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2010, 06:29:38 PM »

How much money does it take to sell out your country?  It should never be enough!  The pentagon should be watching better!  What do we pay them for, to watch other country's pockets and not out own? evil
Logged
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2010, 08:51:54 AM »

The thing that steams me the most is, Arizona passed a law to protect its citizens because the federal govt. was not. The federals govt. then decides to go sue the state rather than support the state in protecting her CITIZENS. something just seems wrong about that

Keith
I believe that the rights of all American citizens should be respected.  And the rights of non-citizens that are also enumerated in our Constitution.  I wish that I had heard so much concern for the fate of Jose Padilla, a US citizen, arrested on US soil, with no weapon and no charge of violent behavior.  He was denied a trial, denied access to a lawyer, denied all due process.  You can't pick and choose which citizens get their rights, because I guarantee that you will eventually end up on the list of citizens who have lost their rights.   

States do not have the authority to determine what constitutes citizenship and they do not have the authority to deport or arrest someone for not having papers.  If the feds are failing to meet their responsibilities (and you are right, they are failing) then the pressure must be put on your US Senator and Representatives.  This is not the business of the states.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15082


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2010, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote
And the rights of non-citizens that are also enumerated in our Constitution

and they are?

Quote
States do not have the authority to determine what constitutes citizenship and they do not have the authority to deport or arrest someone for not having papers.  If the feds are failing to meet their responsibilities (and you are right, they are failing) then the pressure must be put on your US Senator and Representatives.  This is not the business of the states.


show me which parts of the AZ law did any of the above?

Padilla...love child of the left. 
as a matter of fact, you are correct. he is a citizen.  he should have had due process...although i do not think it should have been in civilian court. 

i guess many of us didn't get to excited about a TERRORIST who got screwed because many of us think they should just be shot where they are found.  that would be the kind of due process i'd like to see.  except for nutball libs, there's probably a war between law and what's right going  on in many of our hearts.  forgive us if our hearts win from time to time and we don't lose sleep over Padilla.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2010, 09:56:30 AM »



and they are?
Those rights which do not refer to a citizenship requirement.  Like the right of the people to peaceably assemble.  Or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't have to be a citizen to have that right.  There are many like that. Some rights are restricted to citizens but many are simply human rights that belong to everyone.

Quote
show me which parts of the AZ law did any of the above?
 

The part that said people could be arrested if they did not have papers proving citizenship.


Quote
Padilla...love child of the left. 
as a matter of fact, you are correct. he is a citizen.  he should have had due process...although i do not think it should have been in civilian court. 
That's because the left is applying principles instead of basing the issue of rights on what someone looks like.  Padilla had a right to a trial by a jury of his peers.  What did he do that justified a military trial?  He was finally tried (after being tortured)  and was never convicted of terrorism or any violent act.

Quote
i guess many of us didn't get to excited about a TERRORIST who got screwed because many of us think they should just be shot where they are found.  that would be the kind of due process i'd like to see.  except for nutball libs, there's probably a war between law and what's right going  on in many of our hearts.  forgive us if our hearts win from time to time and we don't lose sleep over Padilla.
And that really is the problem.  He was not a terrorist.  At most, he was a wannabe.  In reality he was a pathetic delusional bum.  Who is going to decide who should be shot where they are found, without trial?  The Bush administration used people's fear to push through the Patriot Act and other non-legislative changes that concentrated power in federal hands and reduced the rights of all US citizens.  When you forsake the law, that's what you get.  Not more rights for yourself, but fewer.  And even more reason to fear the federal government.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2010, 10:05:10 AM »


and they are?
Those rights which do not refer to a citizenship requirement.  Like the right of the people to peaceably assemble.  Or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't have to be a citizen to have that right.  There are many like that. Some rights are restricted to citizens but many are simply human rights that belong to everyone.

So what you are saying here is a couple hundred armed Mexicans can come storming over the border anytime they want to and peacefully assemble around the court house in Austin, TX.?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15082


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2010, 10:44:10 AM »

Quote
The part that said people could be arrested if they did not have papers proving citizenship.


can you quote that part of the law?

Quote
Padilla had a right to a trial by a jury of his peers.  What did he do that justified a military trial?  He was finally tried (after being tortured)  and was never convicted of terrorism or any violent act
.

he conspired to preform acts of terrorism in this country.  tortured?  prove it.  if this had been under FDR, the lefts favorite prez, he would have been executed.  instead, he was tried and convicted.  guess the system worked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/us/16cnd-padilla.html

Quote
In reality he was a pathetic delusional bum


so if a criminal is not as successful as he desires to be, that should be taken into consideration?  perhaps a new law that allows for delusional bumbling as a defense?

how do you feel about the current admins kill orders for us citizens?

the difference between things like the Patriot Act and executive kill orders is that the first ends up being ironed out in the court system.  the second???
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2010, 10:53:36 AM »


So what you are saying here is a couple hundred armed Mexicans can come storming over the border anytime they want to and peacefully assemble around the court house in Austin, TX.?
Ha.  No, I think the federal government should close the border.   The immigration laws should be enforced.  Why have they not been enforced... and that includes by Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama?  The answer is easy... it's because American companies and individuals want cheap labor.  We have looked the other way when they pick fruit, or tobacco (where I live), or clean houses.  And after they have lived and worked here and had children here, we want to send them back?  Splitting up families?   That is not just an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under the law, but it is a violation of human rights.  

Since it's inception, the US has profited from the labor of the downtrodden.  Didn't we learn from slavery that it was not a good idea?  Having cheap labor that puts a huge burden on emergency rooms and public schools is not in our interests.  We should close the border, give citizenship to those who have been employed here for at least 2 years, start paying workers what they are worth.  That's my opinion.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2010, 11:21:47 AM »


he conspired to preform acts of terrorism in this country. 
Really.  What acts would those be?  And where in this country?  In fact, he was convicted on the evidence of an application form to an AQ camp.  An application in arabic, under an alias.  And he never attended the camp. And he denied he filled out the application.  Which was not illegal at the time in any case.   Come on.  He was not even tried for the charges that got him locked up for 3 years.  That is not the American way.

As to the arrest for not having papers, that would be these sections of AZ law 1070:


      F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

      D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

      E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Since being in the US illegally is a public offense that makes the person removable, and since probable cause of that offense does not require a warrant,  and since only citizenship papers would block that determination, these provisions taken together would allow arrest on "reasonable suspicion"  in the absence of papers.  None of these powers are in the perview of the State of Arizona.

Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15082


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2010, 11:58:21 AM »

you convienently skipped part of it:

       A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20             B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Padilla, the gang banger (former) was convicted by a jury.  your argument is with them.  he certainly can appeal his conviction.  perhaps he'd win. 

i can't help but wonder how differently the ft hood thing would have been if they'd taken the shooters wanna be emails, etc. as seriously?
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Little John_NC
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 136

Location: Lilesville North Carolina


« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2010, 12:24:47 PM »

Keith ,that is dead on right. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens when the federal government has failed to do so. We are United States,seperate the words into states that are united on common grounds with individual sovereignties.(spelling?)


Ken I think Jefferson said it the best in the THE VIRGINIA & KENTUCKY RESOLUTION .
THE VIRGINIA & KENTUCKY RESOLUTION was in response to the Alien & Sedition Acts, which made it a federal crime to criticize the government ("sedition") and gave the federal government the power to deport people living in America as long as they weren't citizens.

THE VIRGINIA & KENTUCKY RESOLUTION was also used by the south during the War between the States to leave the Union. evil
Well we know how that turned out.  :'(

It well worth the read.......http://www.isil.org/resources/usdocs/va-ky-resolutions.html
Logged

Little John
_________________________________________


"The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history."
Winston Churchill


Quote from chronicle of  Marcus Lucanus of the Roman civil war: Caesar said :
"Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!
Caesar men cheered :
" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2010, 12:33:10 PM »

you convienently skipped part of it:

20             B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR a COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

I didn't "conveniently" skip it.  I'm not trying to slip anything by you.  It has no relevance.  Sure, it means that some other reason for contact must come first.  That could be anything from an wide turn to a burned out brake light.  And some of those things are pretty hard to verify after the fact.  But let's assume that the officer is acting in good faith.  It still means that officers will come in contact with people they may suspect of being illegals for reasons having nothing to do with the wide turn.  That suspicion is pretty much impossible to form without recourse to the language abilities and skin color of the person involved.  But even then, the officer is allowed to form a suspicion and arrest if the individual does not have papers.  Which is what I was contending to start with.  The requirement that another cause of interaction must come first does not change that conclusion.

Quote
Padilla, the gang banger (former) was convicted by a jury.  your argument is with them.  he certainly can appeal his conviction.  perhaps he'd win.  
I have no argument with the jury.  I learned a long time ago that there can be facts that the jury sees that never make the papers.  My argument is with the administration that locked him up for 3 years without trial.  If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.  Maybe for nothing more than being opposed to the current administration.
Quote
i can't help but wonder how differently the ft hood thing would have been if they'd taken the shooters wanna be emails, etc. as seriously?
Emails should be private.  But I agree as far as his facebook rants.  
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2010, 12:58:39 PM »


and they are?
Those rights which do not refer to a citizenship requirement.  Like the right of the people to peaceably assemble.  Or the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Don't have to be a citizen to have that right.  There are many like that. Some rights are restricted to citizens but many are simply human rights that belong to everyone.

So what you are saying here is a couple hundred armed Mexicans can come storming over the border anytime they want to and peacefully assemble around the court house in Austin, TX.?

Ha.  No, I think the federal government should close the border.   The immigration laws should be enforced.  Why have they not been enforced...

So now you change the parameters of your argument? But it takes it back to where we started. The government which you say should be doing this is not doing it. So how do we stop this from happening if the federal government is not going to do it?

They may or may not be armed. May or may not be carrying drugs. But they are coming over the border by the thousands and may or may not be peacefully assembling.

Then you put this....


I didn't "conveniently" skip it.  I'm not trying to slip anything by you.  It has no relevance.  Sure, it means that some other reason for contact must come first.  That could be anything from an wide turn to a burned out brake light.  And some of those things are pretty hard to verify after the fact.  But let's assume that the officer is acting in good faith.  It still means that officers will come in contact with people they may suspect of being illegals for reasons having nothing to do with the wide turn.  That suspicion is pretty much impossible to form without recourse to the language abilities and skin color of the person involved.  But even then, the officer is allowed to form a suspicion and arrest if the individual does not have papers.  Which is what I was contending to start with.  The requirement that another cause of interaction must come first does not change that conclusion.
 

So someone is stopped for speeding. In most cases they have to show valid drivers license and proof of insurance and in some cases the registration of the vehicle. If the driver doesn't have all the required documents then isn't it possible it is because they might be here illegally?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15082


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2010, 01:18:35 PM »

it is interesting that the left waves the constitution when it is convenient, but suggests it's not relevant when they want do do things like take over health care, companies, loan programs, etc.

it is also interesting that the history of civil rights violations from A&S laws, to internment, to segregation, have all been supported and perpetrated by the left.  much of that done with no chance for due process.  the left only named itself champion of civil rights when they found the the votes would be helpful.  to get the votes, they offered "stuff".  they created another form of slavery.

the constitution was designed to give almost all power to the states.  the argument against the AZ law is that it interferes with, or supersedes the federal law.  it does not.  rather than fuss about what might happen, why not let the law go into effect and then challenge those parts that do not work as advertised. 

it might be just as good a constitutional argument that having INS operate in states as a law enforcement agency is unconstitutional.  they might do better to act as a clearing house for info and a deportation agency, rather than raiding businesses.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2010, 01:50:51 PM »


So now you change the parameters of your argument? But it takes it back to where we started. The government which you say should be doing this is not doing it. So how do we stop this from happening if the federal government is not going to do it?
 
I didn't change anything.  You asked me if I thought it was ok for armed Mexicans to cross the border illegally.  I said no.  And I already answered your next question.  Talk to your Senator and House member.  It is the job of the Federal government, not the states.   If I see someone speeding, and the police don't stop them, is it ok for me to run them off the road to enforce the speed limit.  It's not my job to do that.  Similarly, the state has no power over national borders or illegal immigrants.  I agree that the failure of the feds to enforce the law is terrible.  I have said what I think would make a good comprehensive solution that could actually pass the Congress.

If Republicans decide to play politics with the slogan "no amnesty" then there will not be a comprehensive solution.  Obama is deporting people faster than Bush did, but they can't do it fast enough unless the border is closed.  And there is not going to be support for closing the border without a comprehensive settlement and the guts to stand up to companies and farmers who benefit from cheap labor.

Quote

So someone is stopped for speeding. In most cases they have to show valid drivers license and proof of insurance and in some cases the registration of the vehicle. If the driver doesn't have all the required documents then isn't it possible it is because they might be here illegally?
Sure.  But in the US we don't have to carry documentation of citizenship.  And driving without a license is not grounds for deportation.  These are state authorities and have no business enforcing immigration law.  If you really want to fix this problem, then support federal legislation closing the border and giving established workers citizenship.  That is a compromise that could pass.  Anything else is just political posturing by both sides and does not fix the problem.  Look, this has been a problem for a long time.  If the Congress did not like having the issue, they would have fixed it a long time ago.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15082


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2010, 02:34:05 PM »

Quote
These are state authorities and have no business enforcing immigration law.

why not?  and if this were true, why does ICE offer training for local and state LEO's?
should local LEO's not enforce any federal laws?

we have worker programs.  we have green card programs. we have a visa program.  i do not think that we can deport how ever many million people there are that are in this country illegally.  i do think that we need to identify them, verify that they are not criminals and that they have jobs, and then deal with how they stay in this country...if they are to stay.  we do have a right to know who is here and why.  we have a right to decide who stays and why.  illegals do not have a right to demand that they be allowed to stay.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2010, 03:00:32 PM »

we have worker programs.  we have green card programs. we have a visa program.  i do not think that we can deport how ever many million people there are that are in this country illegally.  i do think that we need to identify them, verify that they are not criminals and that they have jobs, and then deal with how they stay in this country...if they are to stay.  we do have a right to know who is here and why.  we have a right to decide who stays and why.  illegals do not have a right to demand that they be allowed to stay.
I pretty much agree with you.  But the problem won't get solved until the border is closed and companies that hire illegals are prosecuted for it.  You will never get what you want without a comprehensive law.  Liberals are not going to support laws that crack down on illegals until they are sure about the "we can't deport millions of hard working people with US citizen children" part.  You say we have a right to know who these people are.  Ok, then support a comprehensive law that finds out who they are and allows the law abiding workers among them to stay.  Otherwise, it's just talk and nothing will change.  

a law that allows for the possibility of people who have worked hard being sent home will not pass.  We don't exactly have clean hands here.  We, as a country, have known for a long time that illegals were working and raising families here.  So now, when the umemployment rate is high, we suddenly decide to come to Jesus?  To do the right thing?    I don't think so.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2010, 04:31:46 PM by FRAMEshift » Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.934 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page August 07, 2014, 02:43:22 AM