Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 12:37:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81396 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Immigration issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: Immigration issues  (Read 93476 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #350 on: July 03, 2010, 11:13:50 AM »

http://www.investors.com/EditorialCartoons/Cartoon.aspx?id=539231
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #351 on: July 04, 2010, 10:00:31 AM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10469572.stm

'Son of Hamas' granted US asylum
Page last updated at 18:28 GMT, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 19:28 UK
Mr Yousef said he grew disillusioned with Hamas The son of a founder of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas is to be granted asylum in the US, a judge has ruled.

Mosab Hassan Yousef said he became a spy for Israel's intelligence service and converted to Christianity before moving to California in 2007.

He went public earlier this year when he published his memoir called Son of Hamas.



That is the main problem I have with the last 3-4 presidential administrations.  Laws  are getting selectively enforced, depending on what your connections are.  That is "the King's Justice" aka Medieval and should have no place in America.  The government should not be above the law either- wrong is wrong no matter who or what is acting.  That is one of my main peeves with groups and government- somehow what is immoral/wrong to do as an individual become okay if it is a group acting.........
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #352 on: July 04, 2010, 10:11:16 AM »

I don't understand.  Why would Baraq Hussein Obama want to deport this man?  cheesy angry angry
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #353 on: July 04, 2010, 10:26:30 AM »

<tin foil hat>  Obama is a closet islamist and is helping the cause by deporting an apostate for proper revenge killing to encourage the others? </tinfoil hat>  Amonst other conspiracy theories I have seen ranging from simple "secret appeasement" to what I just mentioned........
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #354 on: July 07, 2010, 11:47:27 AM »

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2010/05/12/4274124-do-you-support-arizonas-tough-new-law-on-illegal-immigration
Logged
Mick C.
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #355 on: July 07, 2010, 09:34:24 PM »

Re the Arizona DOJ lawsuit:

Apparently, the deep-blue state of Rhode Island has been doing the same thing as Arizona is set to do, for years:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/

Oklahoma, Utah, and South Carolina are looking at similar legislation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html?hpid=topnews

Surprisingly, a majority (62%) of San Diego residents oppose the DOJ's lawsuit against Arizona:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=603455a2-67bc-468d-b483-6a577f3bb2ad
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #356 on: July 09, 2010, 02:44:47 AM »

Woof,
 One quick point and then a story about funds being raised to fight the government's lawsuit; if it is found that the Federal government alone can make and enforce immigration laws then immigration laws drawn up by sanctuary cities would by default also be unconstitutional. cheesy
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_donations

 Oh, and I notice the government's complaint doesn't mention racial profiling so much for race baiting in the courts; I guess it doesn't get the same effect as it does as a public smear; and I wonder if the four judge's that were so hot and heavy on states rights to ban guns, will be so willing to go to bat for AZ on this issue, of course Leftist political agendas have nothing to do with their findings they strictly follow the Constitution on these matters. tongue
                                              P.C.
Logged

Rarick
Guest
« Reply #357 on: July 09, 2010, 04:18:29 AM »

The DOJ could be considered part of the problem, at least in this area.  The DOJ attorney that resigned over the ACORN prosecution sidelining and the folderol around him indicate that there is a bias among the political appointees at the helm of the department.  (agenda is taking precedent over plain old good law)
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #358 on: July 10, 2010, 02:26:47 AM »

Woof,
 Well this is better than nothing but deportations along with this could really do a lot to solve the problem.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38176981/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

                      P.C.
============
Edited to add something to the Subject line.  This facilitates search requests. --Marc
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 10:15:00 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #359 on: July 12, 2010, 09:53:29 AM »

Published: July 11, 2010

 
BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

 
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association on Sunday.

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The administration seemed to be taking a carrot-and-stick approach on Sunday. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in town to give the governors a classified national security briefing, met one-on-one with Jan Brewer, the Republican who succeeded her as governor of Arizona and ardently supports the immigration law.

About the same time as that meeting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on a taped Sunday talk show that the Justice Department could bring yet another lawsuit against Arizona if there is evidence that the immigration law leads to racial profiling.

Ms. Brewer said she and Ms. Napolitano did not discuss the current lawsuit. Instead, in a conversation she described as cordial, they discussed Arizona’s request for more National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, as well as other resources.

The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.

But David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president remained committed to passing an immigration overhaul, and that addressing the issue did not mean he was ignoring the economy.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t have a good, healthy debate about the economy and other issues,” Mr. Axelrod said.

Mr. Obama addressed the economy last week during stops in Kansas City and Las Vegas, and has been calling on Congress to offer additional tax relief to small businesses.

And the heads of Mr. Obama’s national debt commission — Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles — were on hand here on Sunday to press the economic issue.

The nation’s total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion, and Mr. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, a Democrat and the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, offered a gloomy assessment if spending is not brought under control even more.

“This debt is like a cancer,” Mr. Bowles said. “It is truly going to destroy the country from within.”

Still, the issue of immigration commanded as much attention as anything here this weekend.

Ms. Brewer, who was trailed by television cameras all weekend, called the lawsuit “outrageous” and said the state was receiving donations from around the country to help fight it.

“I think Arizona will win,” she said, “and we will take a position for all of America.”

Immigration was not the only topic at the Saturday meeting between Democratic governors and two White House officials — Patrick Gaspard, Mr. Obama’s political director, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs. But several governors, including Christine Gregoire of Washington, said it was a particularly heated issue.

Ms. Gregoire, who does not face an election this year, said the White House was doing a poor job of showing the American public that it was working on the problem of illegal immigration.

===========

Page 2 of 2)



“They described for me a list of things that they are doing to try and help on that border,” Ms. Gregoire said of the White House officials at the closed-door meeting. “And I said, ‘The public doesn’t know that.’ ”

She added, “We’ve got a message void, and the only thing we’re hearing is that they’re filing a lawsuit.”
Some Democrats also joined Republicans in calling for Congress to pass an immigration policy overhaul this year.

“There are 535 members of Congress,” said Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, a Democrat. “Certainly somebody back there can chew gum and hold the basketball at the same time. This is not an either-or.”

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico praised the Justice Department’s lawsuit, saying his fellow Democrats’ concerns were “misguided.”

“Policy-wise it makes sense,” said Mr. Richardson, who is Hispanic and who leaves office this year on term limits, “and Obama is popular with Hispanic voters and this is going to be a popular move with them nationally.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland — a Democrat who voiced apprehension about the lawsuit in the private meeting, according to the two governors who requested anonymity — said in an interview that he supported it.

“The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen,” Mr. O’Malley said. “When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.”

But Mr. Bredesen said that in Tennessee, where the governor’s race will be tight this year, Democratic candidates were already on the defensive about the federal health care overhaul, and the suit against Arizona further weakened them. In Tennessee, he said, Democratic candidates are already “disavowing” the immigration lawsuit.

“Maybe you do that when you’re strong,” he said of the suit, “and not when there’s an election looming out there.”

Mr. Ritter of Colorado said he wished the Justice Department had waited to sue Arizona until after the law went into effect, to give the public a chance to see how difficult it would be to enforce.

“It’s just an easier case to make,” he said. “I just think that law enforcement officers are going to have a terribly difficult time applying this law in a constitutional way.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #360 on: July 15, 2010, 04:53:37 PM »

“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian”  - Pat Paulsen for President, 1968
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #361 on: July 19, 2010, 10:02:36 AM »

This is exactly the sort of subject wherein the NYT becomes POTH the most:
================================

At a time when the prospects for immigration overhaul seem most dim, supporters have unleashed a secret weapon: a group of influential evangelical Christian leaders.

Normally on the opposite side of political issues backed by the Obama White House, these leaders are aligning with the president to support an overhaul that would include some path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here. They are preaching from pulpits, conducting conference calls with pastors and testifying in Washington — as they did last Wednesday.

“I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order,” said Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm. “There is very little I agree with regarding President Barack Obama. On the other hand, I’m not going to let politicized rhetoric or party affiliation trump my values, and if he’s right on this issue, I will support him on this issue.”

When President Obama gave a major address pushing immigration overhaul this month, he was introduced by a prominent evangelical, the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Three other evangelical pastors were in the audience, front and center.

Their presence was a testament, in part, to the work of politically active Hispanic evangelical pastors, who have forged friendships with non-Hispanic pastors in recent years while working in coalitions to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. The Hispanics made a concerted effort to convince their brethren that immigration reform should be a moral and practical priority.

Hispanic storefront churches are popping up in strip malls, and Spanish-speaking congregations are renting space in other churches. Some pastors, like Mr. Hybels, lead churches that include growing numbers of Hispanics. Several evangelical leaders said they were convinced that Hispanics are the key to growth not only for the evangelical movement, but also for the social conservative movement.

“Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial,” said the Rev. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they’re driven away.

“I’ve had some older conservative leaders say: ‘Richard, stop this. You’re going to split the conservative coalition,’ ” Dr. Land continued. “I say it might split the old conservative coalition, but it won’t split the new one. And if the new one is going to be a governing coalition, it’s going to have to have a lot of Hispanics in it. And you don’t get a lot of Hispanics in your coalition by engaging in anti-Hispanic anti-immigration rhetoric.”

Congress is unlikely to pass an immigration law this year. Republicans and Democrats who face re-election in November are skittish about the issue, given the broad public support for Arizona’s new law aiming to crack down on illegal immigration.

The support of evangelical leaders is not yet enough to change the equation. But they could mobilize a potentially large constituency of religious conservatives, an important part of the Republican base better known for lobbying against abortion and same-sex marriage. They already threaten the party’s near unity on immigration.

“These cross-cutting clusters are just splinter groups, so far,” said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “Support for the Arizona law is so strong within the G.O.P. that it will be difficult for the comprehensive-immigration-reform evangelicals to have much short-term impact.”

But some evangelical leaders said their latest strategy was to push a handful of lame-duck Republicans to join Democrats — probably after the midterms — to pass an immigration bill on the ground that it is morally right.

Although other religious leaders have long favored immigration overhaul — including Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and Muslims — the evangelicals are crucial because they have the relationships and the pull with Republicans.

“My message to Republican leaders,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, “is if you’re anti-immigration reform, you’re anti-Latino, and if you’re anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical.”

About 70 percent of Hispanics in the United States are Catholic, but some 15 percent are evangelicals, and they are far more likely than the Catholics to identify themselves as conservative and Republican.

Evangelicals at the grass-roots level are divided on immigration, just as the nation is. But among the leaders, recent interviews suggest that those in favor of an immigration overhaul are far more vocal and more organized than those who oppose it.

(There is more but you get the gist of it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #362 on: July 20, 2010, 06:37:47 AM »

Geopolitics, Nationalism and Dual Citizenship
July 20, 2010
By George Friedman

Geopolitics is central to STRATFOR’s methodology, providing the framework upon which we study the world. The foundation of geopolitics in our time is the study of the nation-state, and fundamental to this is the question of the relationship of the individual to the nation-state. Changes in the relationship of the individual to the nation and to the state are fundamental issues in geopolitics, and thus worth discussing.

Many issues affect this complex relationship, notable among them the increasing global trend of multiple citizenship. This is obviously linked to the question of immigration, but it also raises a deeper question, namely, what is the meaning of citizenship in the 21st century?

Nation vs. State

It is difficult to make sense of the international system without making sense of the nation-state. The concept is complicated by a reality that includes multinational states like Belgium, where national identity plays a significant role, and Russia or China, where it can be both significant and at times violent. In looking at the nation-state, the idea of nation is more complex, and perhaps more interesting, than that of state.

The idea of nation is not always clear. At root, a nation is a group of people who share a fate, and with that fate, an identity. Nations can be consciously created, as the United States was. Nations can exist for hundreds or thousands of years, as seen in parts of Europe or Asia. However long a nation exists and whatever its origins, a nation is founded on what I’ve called elsewhere “love of one’s own,” a unique relationship with the community in which an individual is born or to which he chose to come. That affinity is the foundation of a nation.

If that dissolves, the nation dissolves, something that has happened on numerous occasions in history. If a nation disappears, the international system begins to behave differently. And if nations in general lose their identity and cohesion, massive shifts might take place. Some might say it would be for better and others for worse. It is sufficient to note here that either way would make a profound difference.

The state is much clearer: It is the political directorate of the nation. How the leaders are selected and how they govern varies widely. The relationship of the state to the nation also varies widely. All nations do not have states. Some are occupied by other nation-states. Some are divided between multiple states. Some are part of an entity that governs many nations. And some are communities that have developed systems of government that do not involve states, although this is increasingly rare.

The relation to the nation is personal. The relation to the state is legal. We can see this linguistically in the case of the United States. I can state my relation to my nation simply: I am an American. I cannot state my relationship to my state nearly as simply. Saying I am a “United Statian” makes no sense. I have to say that I am a citizen of the United States, to state my legal relationship, not personal affinity. The linguistic complexity of the United States doesn’t repeat itself everywhere, but a distinction does exist between nationality and citizenship. They may coincide easily, as when a person is born in a country and becomes a citizen simply through that, or they may develop, as when an individual is permitted to immigrate and become naturalized. Note the interesting formulation of that term, as it implies the creation of a natural relationship with the state.

In the United States, the following oath is administered when one is permitted to become a citizen, generally five years after being permitted to immigrate:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I should say I took this oath at the age of 17. Although I became a citizen of the United States when my father was naturalized years earlier, receiving my own citizenship papers involved going to a courthouse and taking this oath personally. Being confronted with the obligations of citizenship was a sobering experience.

The American oath is one of the most rigorous; other nations have much simpler and less demanding oaths. Intriguingly, many countries with less explicitly demanding oaths are also countries where becoming a naturalized citizen is more difficult and less common. For the United States, a nation and a state that were consciously invented, the idea of immigration was inherent in the very idea of the nation, as was this oath. Immigration and naturalization required an oath of this magnitude, as naturalization meant taking on not only a new state identity but also a new national identity.

The American nation was built on immigrants from other nations. Unless they were prepared to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen,” the American enterprise could fall into chaos as immigrants came to the United States to secure the benefits of full citizenship but refused to abandon prior obligations and refused to agree to the obligations and sacrifices the oath demanded. The United States therefore is in a position shared only with a few other immigration-based nations, and it has staked out the most demanding position on naturalization.

The Dual Citizenship Anomaly
It is therefore odd that the United States — along with many other nations — permits nationals to be citizens of other countries. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t bar this, but the oath of citizenship would seem to do so. The oath demands that the immigrant abandon all obligations to foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 that revoking citizenship on grounds of voting in foreign elections was unconstitutional. The ruling involved a naturalized American who presumably had taken the oath. The Supreme Court left the oath in place, but if we are to understand the court correctly, it ruled that the oath did not preclude multiple citizenship.

It is impossible to know how many people in the United States or other countries currently hold multiple citizenship, but anecdotally it would appear that the practice is not uncommon. Not being required to renounce one’s foreign citizenship verifiably obviously facilitates the practice.

And this raises a fundamental question. Is citizenship a license to live and earn a living in a country, or is it equally or more so a set of legal and moral obligations? There are many ways legally to reside in a country without becoming a citizen. But the American oath, for example, makes it appear that the naturalized citizen (as opposed to just the legal resident) has an overriding obligation to the United States that can require substantial and onerous responsibilities within military and civilian life. An individual might be able to juggle multiple obligations until they came into conflict. Does the citizen choose his prime obligation at that time or when he becomes a citizen?

The reality is that in many cases, citizenship is seen less as a system of mutual obligations and rights than as a convenience. This creates an obvious tension between the citizen and his obligations under his oath. But it also creates a deep ambiguity between his multiple nationalities. The concept of immigration involves the idea of movement to a new place. It involves the assumption of legal and moral obligations. But it also involves a commitment to the nation, at least as far as citizenship goes. This has nothing to do with retaining ethnicity. It has to do with a definition of what it means to love one’s own — if you are a citizen of multiple nations, which nation is yours?

It is interesting to note that the United States has been equally ambiguous about serving in other countries’ militaries. John Paul Jones served as an admiral in the Russian navy. American pilots flew for Britain and China prior to American entry into World War II. They did not take the citizenship oath, having been born in the United States. While you could argue that there was an implicit oath, you could also argue that they did not compromise their nationality: They remained Americans even in fighting for other countries. The immigration issue is more complex, however. In electing to become American citizens, immigrants consciously take the citizenship oath. The explicit oath would seem to create a unique set of obligations for naturalized immigrants.

The Pull of the Old Country
Apart from acquiring convenient passports on obscure tropical islands, the dual citizenship phenomenon appears to operate by linking ancestral homelands with adopted countries. Immigrants, and frequently their children and grandchildren, retain their old citizenship alongside citizenship in the country they now live in. This seems a benign practice and remains so until there is conflict or disagreement between the two countries — or where, as in some cases, the original country demands military service as the price of retaining citizenship.

In immigrant countries in particular, the blurring of the line between nationalities becomes a potential threat in a way that it is not for the country of origin. The sense of national identity (if not willingness to sacrifice for it) is often stronger in countries whose nationhood is built on centuries of shared history and fates than it is in countries that must manage waves of immigration. These countries have less room for maneuver on these matters, unless they have the fortune to be secure and need not ask much of citizens. But in those countries that are built on immigrants and that do need to call for sacrifice, this evolution is potentially more troublesome.

There are those who regard nationalism as divisive and harmful, leading to conflict. I am of the view that nationalism has endured because it provides individuals with a sense of place, community, history and identity. It gives individuals something beyond themselves that is small enough to be comprehensible but far greater than they are. That nationalism can become monstrous is obviously true; anything that is useful can also become harmful. But nationalism has survived and flourished for a reason.

The rise of multiple citizenship undoubtedly provides freedom. But as is frequently the case, the freedom raises the question of what an individual is committed to beyond himself. In blurring the lines between nations, it does not seem that it has reduced conflict. Quite the contrary, it raises the question of where the true loyalties of citizens lie, something unhealthy for the citizen and the nation-state.

In the United States, it is difficult to reconcile the oath of citizenship with the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the right of dual citizenship. That ambiguity over time could give rise to serious problems. This is not just an American problem, although it might be more intense and noticeable here. It is a more general question, namely, what does it mean to be a citizen?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #363 on: July 20, 2010, 09:28:58 AM »

Woof,
 Boy o' boy.... undecided

www.businessinsider.com/maywood-ca-lays-off-all-city-employees-dismantles-police-department-2010-6
 
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37671

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/seven-latin-american-nati_n_652440.html

                                           P.C.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 09:58:00 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #364 on: July 20, 2010, 01:49:10 PM »

Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru

You know what.  It is time we expolre suing these countries for damages they cause us with the drugs they send over.

We need a Prez that will stand up to this abus of our country.  Not one who sides with THEM! angry


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #365 on: July 25, 2010, 12:39:38 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548_pf.html

Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 23, 2010; A01

PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #366 on: July 26, 2010, 02:03:01 PM »

Obama ordered Holder to sue Arizona?  Rich Lowry questioning Rep. Steve King R-IA

LOWRY: Now, this judge, Susan, is a Democratic appointee. And she sounds very skeptical I think very understandably. This lawsuit just on common sense grounds makes no sense. Basically you have the federal government saying we don't want a state to tell us about people who are here illegally, violating federal law. That makes no sense.

KING: It is what it sounds like, Rich. And we know that the law was written in order to mirror federal law and not to go expand beyond the limits of federal law. When the federal government takes a position it's a matter of principle. I'd be curious what principle that might be.

I'm convinced and I think that Eric Holder essentially admitted that President Obama ordered him to sue Arizona. And I asked him before the Judiciary Committee when he was under oath point to a constitutional violation, a statutory violation or a federal case law that Arizona law would have violated. He could not answer any of those questions. That was about five minutes before Ted Poe asked him, have you read the bill?

It was politically motivated. He admitted essentially that the president ordered him to sue Arizona.

What was principle? They couldn't articulate that principle, now they're trying.

LOWRY: You know, that's an excellent point. And there's a real radicalism to this lawsuit because what the administration is basically saying, the law is written by Congress, by you guys, doesn't matter. What's there on paper doesn't matter.

What basically does matter is what the administration decides to enforce by picking and choosing. So I see this suit as an assault on your institution as much as it's an assault against Arizona.

KING: Which it is. And it's a new legal principle as far as I'm concerned. They write in this — in the DOJ's lawsuit that Congress has entrusted and in fact implies that Congress has directed the executive branch to establish this careful balance between the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the State Department.

Now this careful balance was nothing in our legislation. We expect all laws to be enforced. And they're making this careful balance argument. And then they argue that if a state interferes with that delicate balance or that careful balance, then it throws it out of balance, therefore it should be preempted.

And there's another argument that I don't know if it's made in anybody's brief at this point. But if they will argue the Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority to establish immigration law because it says that Congress shall have the power to establish an uniformed naturalization policy.

In the same sentence it says Congress shall have the authority to establish a uniformed bankruptcy policy across the country. So if this would be — if they invalidate Arizona's law on that argument it will then, I think, put the bankruptcy laws in jeopardy in all of our states as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597704,00.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #367 on: July 27, 2010, 12:25:12 PM »

Reader beware, unsourced, but I can verify part of it knowing the family of one of the hikers held in Iran.
---------

Border Violatons - How they are handled in countries around the world

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Mexican borders illegally you will jailed for two years.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.
If you cross the United States border illegally you get:
1 - A job
2 - A driver's license
3 - A Social Security card
4 - Welfare
5 - Food stamps
6 - Credit cards
7 - Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
8 - Free education
9 - Free health care
10 - A lobbyist in Washington
11 - Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language
12 - The right to carry the flag of your country - the one you walked out on - while you call America racist and protest that you don't get enough respect.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #368 on: July 28, 2010, 09:54:56 PM »

Woof,
 Well, they are celebrating in D.C., the AZ law was stopped from going into effect. Yea! Now drug dealers and criminals from all over the world can freely roam about our country without fear of being caught. I mean why shouldn't our top law enforcement officer in the land be happy! Let's party! tongue
 With a Parthian shot (www.yourdictionary.com/parthian-shot), I'll say that this is far from over and that Holder and Obama are soon to have their arrogant asses handed to them by the little Governor from AZ. cool
                                                                   P.C.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 02:13:34 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

Rarick
Guest
« Reply #369 on: July 29, 2010, 07:16:36 AM »

She is going to cite violation of contract (constitution) and do it anyway? or appeal?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #370 on: July 29, 2010, 10:02:46 AM »

" I'll say that this is far from over and that Holder and Obama are soon to have their arrogant asses handed to them by the little Governor from AZ"

Maybe with SCOTUS, but by the time it gets in front of SCOTUS it may well be in time to help His Glibness fire up the Hispanic vote.   IMHO so far the Reps are not doing what needs to be done to prevent this from being a replay of CA's Prop 187.    187 won, and now the Reps are toast with the Mexican-American vote in CA and as such are toast period.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #371 on: July 29, 2010, 02:58:34 PM »

Curious Crafty if you could expand on your observations from Prop. 187.  There are/were a minority of Republicans in the state but a majority of Californians supported it, so how was it so completely spun against R's?  Did it go too far or are you saying it shouldn't have been pushed at all??

I still thing the best course besides securing the border is to scale back welfare and transfer payments of all types to all people, so that illegals or Hispanics are not singled out and illegals aren't lured in for the wrong reasons.

Every amnesty card should include an enforced promissory note for one share of our total debt paid over let's say 30 years with interest.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #372 on: July 29, 2010, 04:00:32 PM »

I voted for 187 and would do so again. 

187 also led some of the Mexican-Americans who voted Republican to perceive the Reps as anti-Latino and now they vote Dem.  It also got some of the non-voting MAs to bother to vote, and they now vote Dem.  Also, Latino citizens who came of age to vote now vote Dem in larger % than would otherwise have been the case.  Given the underlying demographics, this last category is not to be underestimated and will become increasingly Democratic. 

The net result here in CA is that the Rep party is locked in to a declining demographic and we are headed towards becoming like the northeast of the US we Rep victories are a great rarity and the Reps that do win are RINOs e.g. Snowe of Maine.

One reason for the perception of anti Mex/Latino bias is comments like those about "scal(ing) back welfare and transfer payments".  I am NOT NOT NOT suggesting actual bias on your part.  I am saying that such comments are PERCEIVED as such.  The preferred story in the Mex-Amer population, and one with considerable basis in reality, is of hard working people doing the work that Americans are unwilling to do, and sending the money home to support their families.  Suggestions that they are bums on welfare go over very poorly.

IMHO the Reps must align with the natural family values and entrepeneurial spirit of this population.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #373 on: July 29, 2010, 07:17:15 PM »

Woof,
 If we can't get the border sealed and illegals deported then there will only be the Democrat Party. That is why Obama doesn't care if Americans are being raped, robbed and murdered by criminals here illegally. If the problem is solved he can't keep the American people held hostage over amnesty for 13 million new Democrats and their family's that will be coming later; because we can't separate family's and we know how family friendly the Left is; at least to illegal alien families. tongue
                                                 P.C.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 03:28:05 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #374 on: July 29, 2010, 09:17:52 PM »

Woof,
 It's nice when unions bus in members to help protest against racial profiling and human rights. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38467252/ns/us_news-immigration_a-nation_divided  Yeah that's why they show up, they are known for their humanitarian nature. Of course they are too lazy to walk their own picket lines so they hire non union workers at minimun wage to walk for them and that leaves them plenty of time to travel to AZ to do Obama's dirty work. http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/the-union-label-is-hypocrisy-unions-hire-minimum-wage-non-union-workers-to-do-their-picketing-for-them/
 I don't think Governor Brewer will wait for the courts; she'll be taking other actions soon. They're doing everything they can to intimidate her and the people of AZ, and I don't see them backing down.
                                P.C.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 03:25:15 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #375 on: July 30, 2010, 01:51:45 PM »

The Foundation
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson


Government & Politics
Judge Blocks Part of Arizona's Immigration Law

Trash left along the border by illegal aliensClinton-appointed District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocked most of Arizona's immigration law this week, ruling that it would "impermissibly burden federal resources." In other words, enforcing federal law is a violation of federal law. The preliminary injunction, she said, would merely preserve the status quo and be less harmful to immigrants than allowing the law to be enforced in full. The next step for Arizona is an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Bolton said that the Justice Department's suit was "likely to succeed on the merits."

Bolton blocked the primary provisions of the law -- including those requiring state law enforcement officials to check immigration status when other legitimate contact occurs, as well as the requirement that foreigners carry their papers at all times (federal law already requires this). On the other hand, 12 provisions, including some on human smuggling and transporting illegals, were left intact. All told, though, her ruling went even further than the DoJ had hoped.

The Department of Homeland Security is bound by federal law to "respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status ... for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information." Yet Bolton wrote, "An increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration ... will divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities." Or as National Review put it, "she accepts Justice's implicit argument that it's not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce."

National Review concludes:

The bottom line is that Arizona wants to enforce the law against illegal aliens. It wants them to be cognizant of the fact that the state is serious about the law, and therefore to conclude that it's best to leave or not come in the first place. Arizona did not deem these people illegal aliens. The federal government did, in laws passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. Arizona thinks those laws mean something. If the Justice Department's suit -- and Judge Bolton's line of argument -- prevails, then we'll know that they don't. The real law of the land will be our current, de facto amnesty, imposed by executive whim.
For the administration, the bottom line isn't the law, but getting voters from the Hispanic bloc. With the help of their Leftmedia minions, they are succeeding. Meanwhile, America's immigration system remains broken and in desperate need of repair -- preferably by those who value and uphold the Rule of Law.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #376 on: July 30, 2010, 04:39:04 PM »

From wikepedia.  The constitution grants pardon power to the Pres.  So nothing can stop Bamster from doing this.  I predict he will.  Suppose in 2012 he loses reelection.  Nothing can stop him as a lame duck from pardoning 20 million illegals before he walks out the door.  And I believe he will do it if it comes to that.  I wonder if the founders ever imagined this.  I believe Obama will do it sooner if he can get away with it politically.  Suppose he simply decides to do this before the election.  He will then have 20 million more people to vote for him.  I wonder how long in advance he would have to do this so the illegals can register/qualify to vote for him.

Reagan made a big mistake setting precedent for this.   

****In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[12]

All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice. The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II).[13]

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's commutation of sentences for 16 members of FALN in 1999 and of 140 people on his last day in office, including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Most recently, George W. Bush's commutation of the prison term of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was controversial.

The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[14]

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[15] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Ossian Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)[16]

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, pardon recipients may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of their residence regarding the procedures for restoring their state civil rights.****

[edit] State law
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #377 on: July 31, 2010, 09:03:16 AM »

CCP; if Obama does pardon all illegal aliens, another form of amnesty I suppose, I still don't understand your comment;

"Suppose he simply decides to do this before the election.  He will then have 20 million more people to vote for him".


However Aliens, even legal Resident aliens, are not allowed to vote in federal elections. Their voting in federal elections is a criminal
offense that can result in one year in prison and deportation.

You must be a citizen to vote in Federal elections.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #378 on: July 31, 2010, 09:33:30 AM »

You mean it's illegal like all the dead people who vote in Chicago elections? Or illegal like getting people to register and vote in more than 1 jurisdiction like ACORN was accused of doing? Or illegal like the felons who voted, putting Al Franken over the top in Minnesota? That kind of illegal?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #379 on: July 31, 2010, 10:59:11 AM »

JDN,

I don't know how soon after one is granted amnesty they will be able to vote.  Perhaps you are right and it wouldn't be soon enough to give Bamster all thse votes.

The larger more despicible situation is this guy can alter the course of our history by granting amnesty to tens of millions who will largely vote for a party that taxes and spends money to buy votes of their contstuents.  And not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  The founders gave too much power to the President in retrospect.
Wikepedia even points out how this was troubling to them from day one. 

I see no reason why bama wouldn't do this.  It totally fits with his goals of distributing wealth to buy votes and keep power.  Again does anyone for one second think the Dems would be stalling for this if these people were not going to vote for them.  Sure come to this country and vote for socialistic programs that distributes money to them.  I don't know why American Blacks do not see this as screwing them as well.  As well as the Latinos who cme here legally.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #380 on: August 05, 2010, 11:15:04 AM »

The pardon question is interesting.  I don't see how that would grant citizenship.  For the Pres. to grant blanket citizenship appears to be outside of his powers. If it requires congress, hard to believe any amnesty deal could get through right now that allowed immediate voting to change the next election.  He would love to have the amnesty citizenship legacy with healthcare, even as a one-termer, still I don't think he could get a that deal through 60 senators before or after the correcting midterms and not through the House either.  People are upset about this in places like Nebraska, not just Arizona.  Suing AZ and stirring up the controversy is helping him presumably with Hispanics and maybe that is his intent, but it is not helping him overall - his Gallup approval sunk to 41 this week.
----

An email is circulating that attributes the following to Gov. Jan Brewer.  I can't find that she said it, but these are the points she could have / should have made back to the protesting Phoenix Suns.  Those who complain about Arizona law seem to have their own obsession with 'secure borders'.

'What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?'
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #381 on: August 05, 2010, 11:24:23 AM »

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades. In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants. On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #382 on: August 05, 2010, 11:36:09 AM »

Second post of the morning:

Some 11 million to 15 million illegal aliens are now residing in America, most after crossing into America unlawfully. Once a federal law is arbitrarily not enforced, all sorts of bizarre paradoxes arise from that original contradiction. As proof, examine the following illogical policies and contradictions involving illegal immigration.

Take, for example, profiling -- the controversial questioning of those who appear likely to be illegal aliens. Apparently, American border guards have developed criteria for profiling those deemed likely to be unlawful aliens. Otherwise, how would they have arrested and deported hundreds of thousands in 2009?

Yet apparently, at some arbitrary point distant from the border, those who cross illegally are not supposed to be asked about their immigration status. OK, but exactly why did procedures so radically change at, say, five, 10, 20, or is it 100 miles from the border? A border patrolman often profiles, but a nearby highway patrolman cannot?

The federal government is suing Arizona for the state's efforts to enforce the federal immigration law. The lawsuit alleges that Arizona is too zealous both in enforcing immigration law and encroaching on federal jurisdiction.

But wait -- for years, several American cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities. City officials have even bragged that they would not allow their municipalities to enforce federal immigration statutes. So why does Washington sue a state that seeks to enhance federal immigration laws and yet ignore cities that blatantly try to erode them?

Something is going very wrong in Mexico to prompt more than half a million of its citizens to cross the border illegally each year. Impoverished Mexican nationals variously cite poor economic conditions back home, government corruption, a lack of social services, and racism. In other words, it is not just the desirability of America but also the perceived undesirability of Mexico that explains one of largest mass exoduses in modern history.

But why, then, would Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose country's conditions are forcing out its own citizens, criticize the United States, which is receiving so many of them? And why, for that matter, would many of those illegal immigrants identify, if only symbolically, with the country that made them leave, whether by waving its flag or criticizing the attitudes of the Americans who took them in?

And how does Mexico treat the hundreds of thousands of aliens who seek to illegally cross its own southern border with Central America each year? Does Mexico believe in sovereign borders to its south but not to its north?

Is Mexico more or less humane to illegal aliens than the country it so often faults? Why, exactly, does Mexico believe that nearly a million of its own nationals annually have claims on American residency, when Chinese, Indian, European and African would-be immigrants are deemed not to? Is the reason proximity? Past history?

Proponents of open borders have organized May Day rallies, staged boycotts of Arizona, sued in federal and state courts, and sought to portray those who want to enforce existing federal immigration law as racially insensitive. But about 70 percent of Americans support securing our borders, and support the Arizona law in particular. Are a clear majority of Americans racist, brainwashed or deluded in believing that their laws should be enforced? And if so, why would immigrants wish to join them?

It is considered liberal to support open borders and reactionary to want to close them. But illegal immigration drives down the hourly wages of the working American poor. Tens of thousands of impoverished people abroad, from Africa to Asia, wait patiently to enter America legally, while hundreds of thousands from Latin America do not. How liberal can all that be?

America extends housing, food and education subsidies to illegal aliens in need. But Mexico receives more than $20 billion in American remittances a year -- its second-highest source of foreign exchange, and almost of it from its own nationals living in the United States. Are Americans then subsidizing the Mexican government by extending social services to aliens, freeing up cash for them to send back home?

These baffling questions are rarely posed, never addressed and often considered politically incorrect. But they will only be asked more frequently in the months ahead.

You see, once a law is not considered quite a law, all sorts of even stranger paradoxes follow.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #383 on: August 06, 2010, 11:03:46 AM »

Hey CCP,  (You should bring your last post over to here)
"why don't [networks] give us the real objective picture about illegals."

The latest news from our metro we are up 19 Somalians from Minneapolis charged with Al Qaida-tied terrorist activities.  This is not about heritage, it is about right to know and control who comes in, what for, and how long they will be staying.

As argued on L. issues, our cops can follow any one of us for nothing and watch for a screwup to pull us over, but feds don't track people they know came in, then insist we play 'don't ask, don't tell' across the fruited plain.

It's not good for security.  The good news is that now it is on the radar screen politically and this is a pivotal year.
-----

http://wcco.com/wireapnewsmn/Timeline.of.important.2.1845631.html
In Minneapolis, 19 people have been charged in the FBI's investigation into a terror recruiting operation
Read the detailed timeline too long to post. The ties of terror to twin cities communities and the revolving door travel in and out of MN to terror locations is freightening and that is just the part we know about.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #384 on: August 06, 2010, 11:25:42 AM »

"our cops can follow any one of us for nothing and watch for a screwup to pull us over"

I was once pulled over while driving a relative's car while mine was in the shop.

My wrong?  I stared at a local police officer while driving past him in his car because I thought he looked familiar and might be a patient. of mine.  He thought that was odd so he looked up the plate and then realized the registration was overdue by a few days.  So I got pullled over and had to explain all the above.

I gave my relative the ticket after getting an oil job and filling the tank for his allowing me the privilege of using his car.  It was all a minor thing. 

But if I was illegal and the policeman happened to ask for proof of residence than perhaps I could have said the police officer had profiled me - a Jew - and sued.

I am not sure if the ACLU would have picked up the case because I am also a white guy. 

Doug your right.  Like so many of us are saying this country is turned up side down by liberals who are hell bent on giving it away towards a world government, and world socialism.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #385 on: August 09, 2010, 09:55:46 PM »

RE-POSTED: The link works now.

Woof,
 Ah yes, the many opportunities that a open border presents. tongue

 
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38615156/ns/world_news-americas



 I'm sure they are just doing the job that American pimps won't do. This is what Obama and the Left are willing to let happen just so they can get more votes and power for their Party and their agenda. They obviously could care less about anything else. I wonder rolleyes, does Obama think about the exploitation that he allows to take place with these young Mexican girls as he tucks his daughters into bed each night? He could stop this tomorrow but he refuses to do so for political reasons; what a heartless bunch of sorry ass ideologues. The ends justify the means. Really? angry

                                 P.C.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:24:43 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 765


« Reply #386 on: August 12, 2010, 05:05:51 AM »

From MSNBC.COM

 About 8% of children born in the U.S. in 2008 -- about 340,000 -- were unauthorized immigrants, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center released on Wednesday.

 The center said that unauthorized immigrants compose about 4% of the adult population, but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of the newborn population and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18).

 The center said it analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2009 Current Population Survey.

 The Pew Hispanic analysis found that 79% of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants were born in this country and are U.S. citizens.

 www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38663819/ns/us_news-life

 Taxpayers rejoice, have a cigar! You might as well, you paid for their hospital cost and you're going to be putting them through school, and I bet we don't even get invited to their graduations.  tongue  We have got to wise up voters and take a hard look at who we are voting for and what they will represent. Do you want them to represent the best interest of Mexico? And for you citizens that don't care enough to vote, maybe you don't want or deserve the freedom and prosperity we have here. Well, just keep on thinking your vote doesn't count, because it doesn't if you don't use it. The fact that you don't cast a vote, means that you're voting for us to turn into a third world sh#* hole, where there is only the very rich, the very poor and the very screwed, like us in the middle.

                           P.C.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 05:38:03 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #387 on: August 12, 2010, 09:48:59 AM »

From MSNBC.COM

 About 8% of children born in the U.S. in 2008 -- about 340,000 -- were unauthorized immigrants, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center released on Wednesday.

  www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38663819/ns/us_news-life

P.C.


That is a slight misquote.  I believe the quote is:
About 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — WERE OFFSPRING OF unauthorized immigrants,......"

In fact, those 8% are legal citizens just like you and I.  

In my opinion, it is the "unauthorized" (illegal) parents that should be deported; the citizen baby may either join them or stay in America with a legal relative.
Theoretically, that is the current law.  We just need to start enforcing it.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #388 on: August 12, 2010, 10:57:46 AM »

Wrong. They are not.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #389 on: August 12, 2010, 02:21:42 PM »

Wrong. They are not.
huh
You may not want them to be "legal citizens just like you and I" but they are.  They have EVERY right and privilege that you and I do.  That's is clearly the law;
further IMHO there will not be a constitutional amendment changing that law.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #390 on: August 12, 2010, 02:27:34 PM »

Today on drudge we have the report that youth unemployment is an all time high. 

Yet we have tens of millions of illegals who seem to find work here.

So for kids today those jobs are all too demeaning?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11846


« Reply #391 on: August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM »

Wrong. They are not.
huh
You may not want them to be "legal citizens just like you and I" but they are.  They have EVERY right and privilege that you and I do.  That's is clearly the law;
further IMHO there will not be a constitutional amendment changing that law.

**Re-read this until it sinks in:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades. In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #392 on: August 12, 2010, 03:47:32 PM »

No reason to "Re-read this until it sinks in"....."  Frankly, such conjecture is irrelevant, albeit interesting.

I am not trying to argue what was or was not intended; it has already been legally decided.  Today, it's a truth/FACT that children of illegal parents born in the USA are citizens.  Accept it.  Agree or disagree; that is how it is.   Clearly, an anchor baby has the same rights and privileges that you and I do.  And it's not going to change without a Constitutional Amendment which IMHO is not going to happen. 
Whether you personally agree or disagree, I presume as an officer of the law, you understand that is the law.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30663


« Reply #393 on: August 13, 2010, 01:39:48 AM »

I would restate that as "That is the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment".
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #394 on: August 13, 2010, 07:01:22 AM »

Today on drudge we have the report that youth unemployment is an all time high. 

Yet we have tens of millions of illegals who seem to find work here.

So for kids today those jobs are all too demeaning?



Actually the cash and carry jobs that used to be done by teens have been taken over by the Illegals.  If you were a business who you gonna hire, a guys who will be there on time and no nonsense while working because he has kids to feed? or a pimply faced kid who is still being fed by mom and dad, and is kind of casual about times, accuracy and quality of work since he does not NEED like the other guy..........

I do not think it is a case of demeaning, I think it is a case of simple competition.  A lawn service was practically unheard of 20+ years ago, you did it youself or hired one of the neighbors kids right?  Unless you were rich, or were a business............

The paper boy of today has a minivan, and delivers for several different papers...............so much for the kid walking/ riding a bike and tossing them like in those business commercials.

Labor laws have tightend things up so a kid cannot earn soda money that way anymore too, I guess it was part of the vote buying process. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #395 on: August 13, 2010, 09:35:14 AM »

Rarick,
I think much of what you said is part of it.  I suppose also some of the work done by illegals is somewhat skilled such as construction - though the quality of their construction may be suspect.  In any case, we do not hear this obvious relationship one ioda from MSM (at least that I have heard) about this obvious relationship.  IT is simple to connect the dots.

The phoney dirtballs at "keeping them honest" CNN continue to ommit discussing the discongruity of having illegals flooding our low wage market while at the same time we see that youth unemployment is at an all time high.

It *doesn't fit* in their agenda of protecting the plight of illegals while the USA burns. The persist in prvoding cover for illegas showing us day after day about their "sad" plight.

Another example of the fruadulent political agenda of those at CNN.  As for the Dems in the WH and other houses of bullshit, well it is obvious they are just gunning for votes to enhance their power. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #396 on: August 13, 2010, 06:10:36 PM »

CCP, I brought this quote over from your Cheryl Crow story:  "I remember someone who was not an American citizen once told me (decades ago) "the world is a joke,  Always Remember I tell you this.  The world is a joke".  His context was that it wasn't fair I was an American citizen and he was not.  I had privileges and lived in the greatest country and he did not - only because of a twist of faith.  I was born here he was not.  The longer I live the more I have come to agree he was right.  I always remembered he told me that wondering if one day I would agree with him."


The world is not a joke; it is more of a puzzle, and figuring things out for ourselves isn't good enough.  We need to articulate and persuade and hold certain things without compromise and sometimes to rise up and sometimes to risk all and fight wars to preserve that which we value.

We have (or had) the greatest country on earth.  We need to protect what we have.  We exclude most outsiders, but we don't prevent them from adopting our principles or copying any of our good qualities such as personal and economic freedom, limited government and a market-based, competitive economy into their homeland.

Instead people in these same countries where they love to escape speak mostly the language of anti-Americanism and choose governments opposite to our founding principles. And so do we.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #397 on: August 14, 2010, 11:30:22 AM »

I know it's fashionable on this site to bash Obama; even I seriously question his calls on the economy and "big" government.
But let's look at Obama on Immigration for a moment.

Keep in mind that the guy has conservatives attacking him (only natural) and lately Liberals attacking him
for not being liberal enough.  Heck, I have a hard time pleasing everyone in my own small world; I can't imagine
his job.

But....

Just recently he did sign a bipartisan bill authorizing an additional 600 million to help secure our borders.  Previous significant steps
have already been taken to secure the border.

illegal Immigration is down these past two years (partially because of the economy, but still, it's down).

Most of the 12 million plus illegals entered on Bush's watch and probably quite a few on Clintons.  Where was the outrage then?

As for this being a democrat attempt to steal votes, illegal aliens cannot vote.  For that matter even legal resident aliens cannot vote
in Federal elections.  It takes 5+ years after becoming legal to become a citizen.  Obama will be gone.  And frankly, I don't understand why the Republican party cannot appeal to Mexicans.  Republicans support hard work, self sufficiency, low taxes, etc.  Many of the same ideals that illegals have who cross the border for jobs.  I don't think the Republicans are telling their story very well.

Yes, illegals cost money; but then I prefer to have illegals in school versus running wild on the street or in gangs.  I am a strong
believer in education.

Yes, medical bills mount up, but then as a humanitarian I think emergency services (that is all that is supposedly offered) should
be offered to all people.  We cannot let them die in the street.  And a few preventative measures, i.e. birth control, vaccinations, etc.
are cost effective.

Most of the illegals come here to work; perhaps they take jobs from Americans, but I wonder how many Americans are willing to
dig ditches, wash dishes, etc.  Most of the Mexicans I know work hard for their family, keep their nose clean, and simply want
to better their life.  I still believe America is "the greatest country on earth".  Do you blame them for wanting to come here?

With 12 million plus illegal immigrants some form of amnesty needs to be worked out.  It simply is not practical to ship them all back.
Let's be realistic.  We need to come up with a reasonable workable plan.  Better to debate how we can solve this problem rather than
merely complaining.

And while I agree with America First, I also think Rarick has a point; Mexico is our neighbor.  Before I attack or sue or .... my neighbor
I make an extra effort to get along.  We live side by side.  We can't/shouldn't tell them what to do.  It just doesn't work long term.

I guess my point in this rant of mine is that Obama is not doing that bad of a job on immigration.  Sure we can agree or disagree on what more
he can do, but frankly, whoever was President, Republican or Democrat, would have his plate full trying to appease everyone.  I just
thought I would throw in my 2 cents for the guy.  It's not easy.
 smiley
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #398 on: August 14, 2010, 12:39:22 PM »

JDN,here are a few points back.  a) I don't bash Obama because it's fashionable. I post heartfelt views here because I can.   b) If 0.6B extra for one of our greatest problems out of 4000B in spending strikes you as 'significant', I don't know what to say except we can watch and see what the results will be.  It strikes me as small, insignificant and coming 100% from political advisers saying that is enough to say we did something, and not at all from border security advisers that see this for what it is to me, an invasion threatening our national security.  c) I can't imagine that this small step could begin to offset the acceleration of the surge inward that I would expect from all the loose talk about amnesty for those who do come in.

"With 12 million plus illegal immigrants some form of amnesty needs to be worked out."   
   - Where else could that level of logic be applied?  How about tax evasion or child abduction.  Look, everyone is doing it.

"I prefer to have illegals in school versus running wild on the street or in gangs."
   - Do I prefer if I am mugged that the money that was formerly mine go toward nutritional snacks for the mugger's children?  Again, I have no ability to follow your logic past the word illegal or that a crime was committed.  And why would you think that they don't vote?  They are counted in the U.S. Census, correct? Propose making the borders open and unattended if that is your wish, and have an up or down vote on it, but do we have to keep playing games with national security and national sovereignty.

"...on Bush's watch ... Where was the outrage then?"
   - Come on JDN, at least argue seriously.  I refuse to believe as informed as you are that you were not aware of the earthquake sized fault line in the Republican Party over borders and immigration under Bush.  For an indicator, political conservatives make up about 40% of the electorate.  When Bush's approvals dropped into the 20s after proposing 'comprehensive' immigration reform that put him close to the proportion of people in the poll who did not understand the question.

"frankly, I don't understand why the Republican party cannot appeal to Mexicans."
    - There it is, the nut of the matter.  We have a hard enough time selling the outrageous idea of having a little freedom and security to Americans in 50 states.  They had to witness Obama-Pelosi economics in action to get any idea what we were talking about.  Now we have to translate and sell to 3rd world countries.  Maybe run political ads in the prestigious Mexico City market or a comprehensive reachout program to the gangs in Nuevo Laredo to start exposing them to our ideas and founding principles before they come and before they are told on the way in to always vote Dem if you want to get the benefits, amnesty and programs that you deserve for your troubles.  What about the Chinese, JDN?  Why don't they have equal rights in America?  If we are going to not enforce borders over land, why is it fair to check everyone at our airports and sea ports?  How many of the 3879000000 disadvantaged people from Asia would need to come here before you would see a security or sovereignty problem?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3979


« Reply #399 on: August 14, 2010, 12:42:15 PM »

JDN,

I hear your opinion.  I disagree with most of it.  But that is just my opinion.  I have already posted my thoughts and you posted yours.  And I agree with you that we just need to agree to disagree about what to do about the problem of ilegals.


Doug,

Getting off the immigration topic but wanting to respond to Doug's thoughts about the "world is a joke" I don't know what to think anymore.  Look at this article below andy not to conclude the world is a joke.  When our own "leaders" are such outlandish thieves, liars, crooks, bullshit artists.  When our own officials who run the country refuse to even level with us and lie and lie.  I don't know what else to conclude about the human race.  And not justur officials but Americans have just as much of the blame.  We want early retirement, someone else to pay for medical care, take care of us when we lose jobs, pay the rents, someone else mpay our mortgage, pay for the food, don't want to work when it is easier to sit at home and collect on someone else's dime, double dip. play the system by robbing medicare, medicaid, disabilities plans, faint injuries, use drugs and allow the Mexicans to die in their streest fighting the narco terror, complain about illegals coming here to work yet we refuse to do it and rather go get a pay check, wealthy fat cats stealing all over in wall street, banks, CEO's, union bosses, politicians stealing lying, physicians some who game the system, lawyers finding any excuse to sue protecting people's legal rights, government emplyees joining unions turning around telling the taxpayers what to do, police firefighters retiring at 50 then getting other jobs for 30 years, Blacks forever blaming race, foreigners coming here illegally then turning around and sticking it is our faces, Muslims building on the site of murder and also sticking it our faces, liberal Jews defending 'them' screaming something about their rights, and on and on and on.  The world and the human race is not a joke?

*** The mystery of Jerry Brown’s pension
August 13th, 2010, 3:00 am · 282 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent
Updated with comment from Brown’s spokesman

As Jerry Brown grabbed the spotlight with his criticism of Bell city officials and their outrageous pensions, The Watchdog got to wondering: How much will the Democrat for Governor make in retirement?

That, as it turns out, is a very difficult question to answer. After more than a month of investigation, the Watchdog can only say for certain that Brown and a handful of other top officials are eligible for generous benefits under a special pension fund so obscure that few people in government know how it works and many thought it had been eliminated 20 years ago by outraged voters.

Under the law, Brown should have accrued, at most, 16 years of service credit in this special fund, known as the Legislators’ Retirement System, or LRS. Actuarial statements produced by LRS, however, indicate that an unnamed person of Brown’s age and earning Brown’s exact salary has been credited with 25 to 29 years of service. The difference would mean tens of thousands of dollars in additional pension payments for Brown each year.

Brown’s campaign staff acknowledge the unnamed person sure looks like the gubernatorial candidate but have been unable to explain the discrepancy over service.

Officials at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which manages LRS, have similarly refused to cooperate, saying the law forbids them from answering questions about specific individuals. Meanwhile, The Watchdog has sought help from the offices of seven state lawmakers, one constitutional officer and one state department as well three outside pension experts and not one has been able to explain the discrepancy.

It’s a mystery as persistent as LRS itself.


THE PENSION SYSTEM THAT WON’T DIE

Founded in 1947, LRS was established by the California State Legislature as a special pension system to serve, well, members of the California State Legislature. Later, it was expanded a little to include constitutional officers, like the governor and attorney general, as well as four unelected legislative statutory officers who hold special responsibilities at the State Capitol. At the absolute most, no more than 136 working officials in state government could be members of LRS, which, by the way, offers pension benefits far more generous than what your typical state worker could earn.

For decades, LRS operated in relative anonymity, doling out pension and health benefits to retired lawmakers and other elected state officials, until the late 1980s, when frustration with state government reached a fever pitch in California. Riding a wave of discontent, voters in 1990 approved Proposition 140, a ballot measure which implemented term limits for state officials and eliminated pensions for state lawmakers.

Many thought Prop. 140 meant the end of LRS. Ted Costa, one of the driving forces behind Prop. 140, certainly did when the Watchdog spoke to him recently.

But Prop. 140 didn’t kill LRS, it merely shrunk it. Today, LRS membership is open only to the state’s eight constitutional officers, the four members of the Board of Equalization, the four legislative statutory officers and lawmakers first elected to the Legislature prior to 1990, who are grandfathered in. As of March, only 13 working officials were members of this independent pension system.

For that baker’s dozen, LRS is a good deal.

State Controller John Chiang, for example, currently is eligible for a $67,897 annual pension for a little over 11 years of elected service under LRS. Under the pension plan offered to typical state employees, Chiang would be eligible, at most, for $40,738 annually.

At the same time, LRS is enticing for retired lawmakers. In recent years, Assemblymen Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, and Jim Nielsen, R-Biggs, have come out of retirement to re-join the Legislature. By virtue of having first been elected to the Legislature prior to 1990, both are eligible to earn pension benefits for time in Sacramento while all other lawmakers are not.

WHERE’S JERRY?

But perhaps most eyebrow-raising is the service of a current LRS member identified in actuarial reports only as 65 years or older with 25 to 29 years of service and a salary of $184,301. CalPERS staff won’t talk about specific members, but with so few people in the system you can tell quite a bit from the actuarials.

Only two statewide elected officials have ever had the exact annual salary of $184,301, according to the California Citizens Compensation Commission: Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Brown was born on April 7, 1938 — he’s 72. O’Connell was born on Oct. 8, 1951. He won’t turn 65 until 2016. The person listed in the actuarials appears then to be Brown.

The only problem is Brown should have only 16 years of LRS-eligible service: four years as Secretary of State (1971 to 1974), eight years as Governor (1975 to 1982) and four years as Attorney General (2007 to 2010).

The Watchdog has spent weeks trying to account for the additional time, to no avail. LRS rules don’t allow members to transfer in service credit accrued in other elected offices, so that eliminates Brown’s time as Oakland mayor or as member of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. LRS members also can’t purchase “air time,” that is, they can’t add years of service credit by paying a fee, as is allowed in other public pension plans. There goes that option.

MYSTERY ENDURES

So how could Brown have additional time?

CalPERS official refuse to say. Spokespeople Brad Pacheco and Pat Macht have both told the Watchdog that even though CalPERS knows the answer, they are prohibited under the law from sharing it with the public.

“I am very sorry CalPERS staff can’t be more helpful, we have gone as far as we can go within the law,” Macht wrote in an email this week.

Brown’s campaign, for its part, says that the attorney general shouldn’t have more than 16 years of service in LRS. The Watchdog first asked the campaign about the discrepancy 3 1/2 weeks ago and while staff there have been polite, they haven’t gotten to the bottom of it nor have staff at the attorney general’s office been able to explain it either.

Campaign spokesman Sterling Clifford did tell the Watchdog that Brown started receiving an annual pension of about $20,000 when he turned 60 in 1998 and pocketed it every year until he assumed the attorney general’s office, when it was suspended. That means Brown’s received a pension on top of his $115,000 salary as Oakland mayor, but it doesn’t explain the discrepancy.

As best as we can tell, Brown would be eligible for an annual LRS pension of $73,720 if he has 16 years of service. If, somehow, he has 25 or more years, it would be $110,580.

We’re going to keep digging. Hopefully, we can get some answers.

UPDATE

Clifford contacted the Watchdog again and had a few more insights. He said that Brown was not a member of any pension system while he served on the community college board, but he did work one year as a clerk at the California Supreme Court, which combined with his time as Oakland mayor would give him nine years in the pension system open to all state workers. He also noted that pensions are calculated based on an employee’s highest salary and because the California Citizens Compensation Commission cut state officials’ pay last year (and very well could keep the pay cut in effect for the coming years), Brown’s pension has likely topped out.

He concluded his brief email with this reminder: “And of course if you are worried about paying out Jerry’s pension, the best thing to do is elect him Governor so he doesn’t collect it.”****

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!