Immigration Bill

[smokedog#3]

capitalism as in major corporations, using illegal immigrants to make 5 billion a year while our american tax payers pick up the slack.

 

[therealUT]

the consititution is a mere shambles of itself, presidents change it and alter when ever they choose. take abe suspending articles to get what he wanted in the civil war, take W and his wiretaps. any historian will tell you this, you did take history in school didn't you. or presidents will simply pass a law to get around it. capitalism in the form of illegal aliens are bringing the economy down. times have changed economics have change and government runs things not the states. i don't see your point on this either.

First, the Constitution doesn't change. Amendments are added, but the original document has not changed since its ratification.

Next, the Civil War started when Abraham Lincoln was elected president and South Carolina seceded. However, South Carolina wanted to keep Fort Sumter, federal property, and then South Carolina militias opened fire on Federal Troops sent to reclaim the Fort. Not exactly sure where you were going with that, feel free to clarify next time.

Wiretaps and surveillance on American citizens is not and has never been unconstitutional. Using unwarranted wiretaps and surveillance as evidence in court against American citizens is. Any legal scholar will let you in on that.

 

[therealUT]

capitalism as in major corporations, using illegal immigrants to make 5 billion a year while our american tax payers pick up the slack.

Again, if major corporations are paying $3/hr or $6/hr to full time employees, more government revenue is generated under the current tax system if they are only paying $3/hr. Therefore, American tax payers are actually being relieved.

 

[GAVol]

Somebody already mentioned this, but a National sales tax would work nicely to combat that. You'd still have illegals working, but at least they'd contribute to the revenue stream.

 

[therealUT]

Somebody already mentioned this, but a National sales tax would work nicely to combat that. You'd still have illegals working, but at least they'd contribute to the revenue stream.

Have you read Neal Boortz's book "The Fair Tax." Great literature and national consumption tax plan.

 

[GAVol]

Have you read Neal Boortz's book "The Fair Tax." Great literature and national consumption tax plan.

I'm a fan. I don't know that it will ever happen, but the fact that Boortz and John Linder were able to write a best selling book about it is very encouraging.

 

[smokedog#3]

tell me when pres abe suspended the writ of habeas corpus it was legal. he took it all on himself. the same way our civil liberties are being attacked by W. he should have obtained warrents, if he can't use them in court what the hell is the use of doing it that makes no sense at all. more government revenue is generated yes at the same time jobs pay goes down because there isn't any minimum wage for illegals. so in the real world americans get paid less because illegals will do the job for less that makes alot of sense. you still haven't factored in all the money tax payers shell out for hospitalization, school, welfare, you know the things americans can't get. there is no way america is going to better itself by letting illegals into our country. there is no way to relieve the american tax payers. the rich get richer while the poor and middle class suffer, but anymore that is the american way.

 

[dan4vols]

I wonder why a straight across the board 10% tax gets so much opposition? You make 10 bucks you pay 1 buck...100 bucks you owe 10. It would be so much easier and simplify the IRS.

 

[therealUT]

tell me when pres abe suspended the writ of habeas corpus it was legal. he took it all on himself. the same way our civil liberties are being attacked by W. he should have obtained warrents, if he can't use them in court what the hell is the use of doing it that makes no sense at all. more government revenue is generated yes at the same time jobs pay goes down because there isn't any minimum wage for illegals. so in the real world americans get paid less because illegals will do the job for less that makes alot of sense. you still haven't factored in all the money tax payers shell out for hospitalization, school, welfare, you know the things americans can't get. there is no way america is going to better itself by letting illegals into our country. there is no way to relieve the american tax payers. the rich get richer while the poor and middle class suffer, but anymore that is the american way.

Our civil liberties are not being attacked, read the Patriot Act.

Next our government is intercepted calls from the Middle East made to Americans in order to prevent future terrorists attacks and track potential terrorist movements, not to prosecute American citizens.

Also, I could care less about jobs being taken from Americans who feel they are entitled to higher wages. If there are people who will gladly do a job for less, then that hurts only those people who will not work for the lower wage, while it benefits the greater society.

 

[smokedog#3]

sounds like a communist way of thinking. thats all i'm going to say about that. :devilsmoke:

 

[GAVol]

sounds like a communist way of thinking. thats all i'm going to say about that. :devilsmoke:

What about that has anything to do with Communism???

 

[checkerboard_charly]

The only part of it that bothers me is the fact that she was waving a Mexican flag. I generally have no problem with immigrants and I would rather see them on a citizenship track than as guest workers becasue I do not want to live in a country with second class citizens. For Pete's sake though, if you want to be in the U.S. please have the decency to wave the U.S. flag so maybe you won't look like an invading army.

yeah i am with ya here. if mexico is so great and you wanna wave their flag.


THEN DO US ALL A FAVOR AND GO BACK.

 

[U-T]

Being back in New Orleans, the Mexicans here have literally tripled the pace of the city getting back on its feet.

Not many of the blacks have returned back here so the Mexicans have come here in the tens of thousands and really taken all the jobs

 

[therealUT]

yeah i am with ya here. if mexico is so great and you wanna wave their flag.
THEN DO US ALL A FAVOR AND GO BACK.

Whether you want to believe it or not, undocumented workers do our us a lot of favors. Sure they don't pay taxes, but most American citizens working minimum wage jobs don't either. However, the corporations they work for pay taxes, and the taxes they pay are based on profit (net income.) Therefore, greater profits turns into greater taxes paid. Greater corporate profits also turns into greater shareholder value if you have your money invested, and finally, cheaper labor also leads to lower prices which means more money in the pockets of consumers.

 

[WA_Vol]

Our civil liberties are not being attacked, read the Patriot Act.

Next our government is intercepted calls from the Middle East made to Americans in order to prevent future terrorists attacks and track potential terrorist movements, not to prosecute American citizens.

Also, I could care less about jobs being taken from Americans who feel they are entitled to higher wages. If there are people who will gladly do a job for less, then that hurts only those people who will not work for the lower wage, while it benefits the greater society.

I know we have less civil liberties now, then we did 100 years ago. This isn't something that happens overnight. Its a gradual erosion over time, a little here, a little there. The patriot act is just another small step, that the country has been heading for some time that you dont notice immediately, but when you look at the effects over a 100 years, its undeniable.

 

[therealUT]

I know we have less civil liberties now, then we did 100 years ago. This isn't something that happens overnight. Its a gradual erosion over time, a little here, a little there. The patriot act is just another small step, that the country has been heading for some time that you dont notice immediately, but when you look at the effects over a 100 years, its undeniable.

I think we have 10 times the civil liberties we had 100 years ago. Ever since the late 50s, we now have some mythical 'right to privacy.' Since the early 70s, contraception, and since 1973 the right to abortion. Now violent criminals can sue the state because they are improperly restrained. Fast forward to 2002 and Americans freak out because now the government knows what books they check out at the local library (i.e. know the government keeps track of what books your borrow from them.)

 

[WA_Vol]

I think we have 10 times the civil liberties we had 100 years ago. Ever since the late 50s, we now have some mythical 'right to privacy.' Since the early 70s, contraception, and since 1973 the right to abortion. Now violent criminals can sue the state because they are improperly restrained. Fast forward to 2002 and Americans freak out because now the government knows what books they check out at the local library (i.e. know the government keeps track of what books your borrow from them.)

it is now a crime to attempt suicide. though its your body, the govt now arrests you and puts you in jail, i assume the state views it in their interest to keep you alive?

they send swat teams now to perform routine home searches. the police are becoming very militarized. a few weeks ago a police swat team shot and killed an optomist while serving a warrant for what was being called illegal sports gambling. an optomist with no record and no weapons in his home.

a few weeks ago a passerby caught on tape a police officer shooting twice in the chest a passenger of a car that had been stopped. the guy was a veteran of the war in iraq, unarmed, and was on the ground. when the officer told him to get up, he shot him twice in the chest. I guess he was a threat? :dunno:

a couple of months ago, a teacher has a unruly first grader, so the police come and arrest her and put her in cuffs and take her to jail.

I read similar examples of this every week. do you think anything like this every happened 100 years ago? i don't.

 

[therealUT]

it is now a crime to attempt suicide. though its your body, the govt now arrests you and puts you in jail, i assume the state views it in their interest to keep you alive?

they send swat teams now to perform routine home searches. the police are becoming very militarized. a few weeks ago a police swat team shot and killed an optomist while serving a warrant for what was being called illegal sports gambling. an optomist with no record and no weapons in his home.

a few weeks ago a passerby caught on tape a police officer shooting twice in the chest a passenger of a car that had been stopped. the guy was a veteran of the war in iraq, unarmed, and was on the ground. when the officer told him to get up, he shot him twice in the chest. I guess he was a threat? :dunno:

a couple of months ago, a teacher has a unruly first grader, so the police come and arrest her and put her in cuffs and take her to jail.

I read similar examples of this every week. do you think anything like this every happened 100 years ago? i don't.

Do you mean 100 years ago when police in the South were connected to the KKK? Do you mean 100 years ago when police in cities such as NYC and Chicago were connected to the political machines and the mafiosos?

Today we read and hear more about civil liberties being infringed upon and shoddy police work largely due to the growth of the internent and the advent of 24 hour news.

Also, be very careful about calling home searches routine. One man with a shotgun can hold off a well trained swat team if he uses the advantages his house gives him. Its a force multiplier.

 

[WA_Vol]

Also, be very careful about calling home searches routine. One man with a shotgun can hold off a well trained swat team if he uses the advantages his house gives him. Its a force multiplier.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the landmark supreme court decision allowing the state to take private property away from individuals if it is viewed to be in the best interest of the state, its called imminent domain.
our rights to our own private property have been greatly eroded.

You need to tell Randy Weaver and whats left of David Koresh's follower's in Waco about being able to hold off a swat team with a shotgun. I think they will disagree.

 

[rwemyss]

Ahhhhh property rights and the FairTax. Sounds like we have some Boortz fans on the board. :biggrin2:

 

[therealUT]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the landmark supreme court decision allowing the state to take private property away from individuals if it is viewed to be in the best interest of the state, its called imminent domain.
our rights to our own private property have been greatly eroded.

You need to tell Randy Weaver and whats left of David Koresh's follower's in Waco about being able to hold off a swat team with a shotgun. I think they will disagree.

Last time I checked it was the FBI and ATF that were in charge of the Koresh ordeal...and they had a couple tanks there.

Second, states in the northeast have been land and using imminent domain since the early 1800s. The only new twist to that is now they can take that land and hand it over to private corporations (which I completely disagree with.) However, that is all concerning states and local governments taking land, not the federal government, and all of it was inacted through state legislatures. This is why I believe in exclusive voting rights to citizens responsible enough to know a little bit about government and the officials they are casting their ballots for. Right now, most people in America vote on 1 or 2 issues: abortion and war, and then complain about taxes, property rights, etc.

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

The Kelo case, regarding eminent domain, was decided in large part on Connecticut law not the U.S. Constitution. Connecticut has a law that says the state can take private property and give it to another private person/business entity for the public purpose of raising tax revenue. Most states, including Tennessee, do not allow that type of taking. The closest thing we allow is for local governments to take private property by eminent domain to create industrial parks. Eminent domain is a necesary tool, even though none of us wants to be forced to give up our property. What if a small group of Amish people banded together and refused to allow eminent domain easments for sewer lines, utility poles, etc. How would we get those services to people who need and want them?

Also, I am very suspicious about people who claim to be "victimized" by the police. Having certain rights ensured by the constitution is one thing. Using the brain God gave you is another. If you went into a bar with a bunch of tough guys and start mouthing off you are going to get your a$$ kicked plain and simple. Why is it that people think they should be able to mouth off and provoke fights with policemen and not expect some rough treatment in return? Now I know the police are intelligent professionals and 9 times out of 10 they are not going to retalliate against someone but I personally have no problem with them teaching someone a lesson in manners by sticking the yellow pages on top of his head and delivering a few thumps with the baton, or whatever else works.

 

[WA_Vol]

Last time I checked it was the FBI and ATF that were in charge of the Koresh ordeal...and they had a couple tanks there.

So since it was the FBI and ATF that makes it right. If they need to serve a warrant, obviously it should be ok to bring in tanks. Like you said all we really need is a shotgun and they will back down.

Second, states in the northeast have been land and using imminent domain since the early 1800s. [/

Your kidding me right? In the early 1800's people were moving out west in droves defending their land from indian attacks, rustlers, animal attacks, etc. Obviously there was a huge need for imminent domain, with the lack of free land.

 

[therealUT]

So since it was the FBI and ATF that makes it right. If they need to serve a warrant, obviously it should be ok to bring in tanks. Like you said all we really need is a shotgun and they will back down.
Your kidding me right? In the early 1800's people were moving out west in droves defending their land from indian attacks, rustlers, animal attacks, etc. Obviously there was a huge need for imminent domain, with the lack of free land.

First, I never said they will back down. I was making the point that entering a house where you are not wanted is never routine, and if forces have a SWAT team available, then they should use that SWAT team.

As to your point about the northeast...I guess there were never any people residing in downtown Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia, etc...The sewer and subway lines were always there, too.

 

[WA_Vol]

As to your point about the northeast...I guess there were never any people residing in downtown Boston, Manhattan, Philadelphia, etc...The sewer and subway lines were always there, too.

In the early 1800's as you suggest? 25 years after the american revolution? probably not very many. certainly not enough to enact an imminent domain policy.