Federal Judge Blocks Texas Immigration Law
May 22, 2007 Immigration
A Federal Judge blocked the law enacted in Farmer’s Branch Texas that would require the immigration status of people who wanted to rent a place to live. U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote:
Only the federal government can determine whether a person is in the United States legally
If this is true, why do employers have to get several types of documentation to prove a person is a US citizen before hiring that person? If it is the federal government’s job and only they can determine who is here legally, then how is it employers are allowed to determine who is here legally? The judge said it was not up to the states to do the federal government’s job. The law on this generally indicates that states and their law enforcement are allowed to enforce the criminal statutes such as catching someone actually coming in ILLEGALLY or finding someone smuggling in ILLEGALS but that just being here is a civil matter, not a criminal one and the federal government has exclusive rights to enforce the civil statutes. Interestingly, some of the statutes start off “Any person who knowingly…” If you are not allowed to check immigration status, how can you knowingly assist ILLEGALS? Seems ambiguous to me.
It also seems to me that if a person is here ILLEGALLY then they broke a criminal law regardless of whether their presence is just a civil matter. Why can’t local law enforcement arrest them for coming here ILLEGALLY (the criminal act) and let the federal government worry about the fact that are here (the civil part). It only makes logical sense that if a person is here ILLEGALLY then he committed a criminal act to do it. A police office may arrest a person who robbed a bank three years ago even though that officer did not catch the criminal in the act. Why can’t the same police officer arrest a person whose presence indicates that he committed a criminal act?
Perhaps states should take a different approach to this. There are certain documents required to get a job. I was born and raised in this country and every job I have ever taken required me to show these forms of identification to prove I was a citizen or here legally. Why don’t states enact laws that require these documents in order to rent a place to live or buy property. States do not have to say it is for immigration, they can just require the exact same items the federal government does for jobs as appropriate ID in order to rent or buy. When a person rents or buys he has to show ID. The folks renting or selling (especially banks) like to know the identity of the person with whom they are doing business. Each state could just enact a law indicating that these items are the only acceptable ones for identification. Maybe states could pass a law stating that in order to be in the state legally a person has to be in the country legally and then they would have the legal authority to check immigration status. I don’t know, but something needs to be done.
The federal government has hamstrung the states and it is those states that are paying for the ineptitude of the federal government. This is why there was a push to criminalize just being here. that way, states could handle the immigration problem. Of course, this was opposed by all the folks who see the inadequacies in the law as a method by which to circumvent the system.
Maybe the federal government and its lawyers are the only ones who can determine if a person is in the US legally but it should be a state’s right to determine if a person is in that state legally. It only makes sense if the will of the people is to be honored.
Other Source:
CRS Report for Congress (pdf)
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Blog @ MoreWhat.com ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ Committees of Correspondence ♦ Mark My Words ♦ DeMediacratic Nation ♦ DragonLady’s World ♦ The Pet Haven Blog ♦ Webloggin ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Diary of the Mad Pigeon ♦ third world county ♦ Right Celebrity ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Nuke’s news and views ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker ♦ CORSARI D’ITALIA ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ High Desert Wanderer ♦ Right Voices and The Yankee Sailor
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Link Fest
Ron Paul
May 19, 2007 Political
Supporters of Ron Paul for president have been bombing on line polls to give the impression that their candidate has more support than he really does. Fox news conducted a post debate poll that showed Paul placed second to Romney and the people at Fox found that quite interesting to say the least. Little Green Footballs had a straw poll and it was obvious that it was bombed by Paul supporters who got very upset that this mean nothing poll would dare claim they cheated.
Ron Paul has some good ideas but he is not presidential material. I believe he had the right to answer his questions as he saw fit and that he should not be excluded form further debates. The whole idea of having debates is to listen to what the candidates have to say and for the voters to decide who they wish to support. It is not a Conservative principle to silence those with whom we disagree. That is what the Democrats do though with the recent immigration amnesty bill it is getting much harder to tell the difference between the parties.
Fred Thompson has not entered the race and if he intends to he is playing his hand quite well. He has gotten a boatload of publicity and has not had to spend one dime and he has not had to raise any money. He is teasing the public and if he plays it right will get in just as the public is ready to climax so that people, in their excitement, will donate and donate big. He will do well in any debate and give the rest of the field, including Paul (despite his poll bombers) a run for their money.
Ron Paul and all the others who are running for the Republican nomination are the reason we need Fred. The candidates on the Democratic side are the reason we need him more than ever.
Don’t agree? Leave a comment and tell me why.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ Is It Just Me? ♦ Right Truth ♦ Leaning Straight Up ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ third world county ♦ Right Celebrity ♦ Woman Honor Thyself ♦ Wake Up America ♦ ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove ♦ Nuke’s news and views ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Blog @ MoreWhat.com ♦ AZAMATTEROFACT ♦ The Random Yak ♦ A Blog For All ♦ guerrilla radio ♦ DeMediacratic Nation ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ Webloggin, Cao’s Blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ ♦ Jo’s Cafe ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Diary of the Mad Pigeon ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ High Desert Wanderer and The Yankee Sailor
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Democrats Still Supporting the Troops, Not!
May 8, 2007 Political
The Democrats are so focused on hurting President Bush that they are neglecting the men and women in the military who are on the front line of the war on terror. There are those, like the dolts at the Daily POS, who say that Bush is not supporting the troops because he vetoed the funding bill. He did not veto the bill because of the funding, he vetoed the bill because it took away the powers vested in him under the Constitution. The Democrats took weeks to pass legislation that they knew would be vetoed. These are the same people who said they would make sure the troops were taken care of.
The latest effort to support the troops is a bill that would provide funding until the end of July and then if there is no progress (no word on who will measure progress or by what standard) then the Democrats will cut off funding for the troops. This is how the Democrats take care of our troops and ensure they have what they need to fight our enemies.
The Democrats long for their glory years of Vietnam where they cut funding and brought our troops home in disgrace. They are looking to again effect change by showing cowardice and thus allowing our enemies to crow in victory as the leaders of Vietnam do to this day. Their actions are pathetic and they are not fit to be the elected representatives of the people. America will only remain the land of the free as long as it remains the home of the brave and with the Democrats the end is on the horizon.
We are headed back to the days of a military with low morale and lack of desire as we had during the Carter and Clinton presidencies. The troops know when they are appreciated and they know when they are being supported and they also know who actually supports them. That is why they vote overwhelmingly Republican.
And therein lies the issue. Perhaps the Democrats are paying them back for supporting the “wrong” party.
Related item:
My Way News
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ The Random Yak ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ Leaning Straight Up ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ The Florida Masochist ♦ Conservative Cat, Rightlinx ♦ Allie Is Wired ♦ third world county ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Planck’s Constant ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Gone Hollywood ♦ The Yankee Sailor
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Daily KOS Should Demand Action from Liberals in Congress
May 8, 2007 Political
A writer named mcjoan at the Daily POS had this to say with regard to the White House while writing about a showdown on emails (they are with Hillary Rodham’s billing records):
On the Iraq War, the White House is just being obstructionist, trying to subvert the will of the American people.
This writer is under some false impression that the election of Democrats to the majority is a mandate to end the war. The election was about a lot of things, including the war, but the victory in no way implies a mandate. These are the same kind of people who, after President Bush was reelected, stated that there was no mandate for his policies. There were those who espoused that Bush’s victory over John Kerry was a mandate to stay the course in the war, a point of view dismissed by the left. If the will of the people was to end the war, why did Ned Lamont, the anti war candidate and Daily POS savior, lose to Lieberman in the General Election? For the record, I believe that Bush’s reelection was a rejection of Kerry and that most Americans believed Bush to be stronger on national security, especially given Kerry’s cut and run military service.
I find it amazing that some people have such blinded views that they fail to recognize their own hypocrisy. These are the same kind of people who failed to call Democrats obstructionists when they opposed the nominations of the President for judicial positions. Using their logic, there was a mandate for the President to appoint conservatives to the bench and yet, the Democrats opposed nominees time and again. The folks who slither around the POS were up in arms (figuratively since most abhor violence and Second Amendment Rights) about John Roberts and Sam Alito being appointed to the SCOTUS but that was, after all, the will of the people.
The Democrats threatened to hold up a number of issues when they were the minority. Their threats to filibuster anything they did not like were certainly obstructionist and resulted in the ill fated gang of 14 whose Democrats vowed not to do such things and then, while the ink was still wet, made more threats.
The Bush Administration is not subverting the will of the people. People in this country want to win. At least all real Americans want to win. The appeasers and those who have no stomach for the hard tasks at hand are willing to give in to the enemy and allow terrorism to spread. What is their plan for after we withdraw? If Congress forces us to surrender and leave then it is up to Congress, not President Bush, to come up with a plan for the aftermath. One would hope they do a better job than they did when they surrendered in Vietnam or there will be a bloody mess with millions killed when we leave and create that vacuum.
I think I have a solution to this issue. Congress should draft legislation that calls for our troops to completely withdraw within 90 days. That legislation must include a provision that if the surrender results in a blood bath in Iraq or if we are attacked at home or at one of our entities abroad (any time after the withdraw), those who voted for the legislation must immediately resign. If cutting and running is truly the correct thing to do and it reflects the will of the people, as mcjoan indicates, then those who vote for such an act should have no issue with being held accountable for that vote. There would be no appeal process and those who were forced to resign would be barred from ever running for office again or from working as a lobbyist.
If the Democrats have the courage of their convictions then this should be a no brainer (which is what they are most qualified to handle). If they are espousing the will of the people then they should have no problem putting their necks out for what they believe to be the right thing and “the will”.
I bet that no Democrat is willing to do such a thing and that no follower of the great and mighty KOS would want them to. When it comes to courage, the war is not the only place Liberals are lacking.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Blog @ MoreWhat.com ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ DragonLady’s World ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Leaning Straight Up ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ third world county ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ The Right Nation ♦ Wake Up America ♦ High Desert Wanderer ♦ Right Voices ♦ The Yankee Sailor
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
It’s Not the Cows that are Full of Gas In Europe
Apr 29, 2007 Uncategorized
Members of the European Union want to alter the diets of cows to keep them from passing so much gas. This is an effort to curb global warming. This is a novel idea. How many others would figure to try and alter the way things nature are with no real indication that the outcome will be better (except for the weirdos who change their sex). I have an idea to help reduce the gas emissions from cows. We need to eat more of them!
Cows provide plenty of food. Each one provides hundreds of pounds of meat that can sustain life. We nee for the EU to start killing and packaging the cows so they can be sent over to the poor nations of Africa where folks die each day from malnutrition. There are plenty of starving people in the EU who would also benefit from having beef to eat. Instead of a gas passing law for cows, they can make a new law that states people have to eat beef 3 or 4 days a week and that Sunday must be a traditional meat and taters day for families.
Of course, we do have to make one more law. We have to outlaw being a vegetarian. Eating only plants increases the amount of gas an organism passes. Cows eat only vegetation and they are working to eliminate that problem but the only creature whose habits we have control over is man. It should be against the law to be a vegetarian and all people who are must be forced to covert and help eat the cows. The might not like it but it is the least they can do to help stop global warming.
Eat more cows and outlaw the vegetarian diet. This will help tremendously and much more so than trying to alter the diet of a cow. It is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It does not work and it irritates the pig…
Source:
Sun UK
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ A Blog For All ♦ 123beta ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Shadowscope ♦ The Pet Haven Blog ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Pet’s Garden Blog ♦ Rightlinx ♦ Faultline USA ♦ Stageleft ♦ ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Walls of the City ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Right Nation ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ OTB Sports
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest