Posted on 01/22/2005 2:11:04 PM PST by 4.1O dana super trac pak
They must have changed the rules than, my neighbor works for the Coast Guard .
Hello, Sweet........yes, I read about Mr. Holt earlier today & was glad to hear about it. Please put me on your ping list if you don't mind. Thanx!
Interesting, to bad your neighbor does not enforce immigration law, he might now better.
How do you think California got so populated with illegals ? It ain't because the cops are deproting them when they find them.
There's fantasy and than there is reality. I look at the reality of what is happening.
Open borders. I grew up in California, I know exactly how it got the way it is.
It isn’t because the cops are deporting them when they find them.
Cops do not have the power to deport illegals, only Federal Immigration Officers do and they catch all that they physically can and deport all that the law will allow.
BTW, who wrote those laws? Americans! Hmmmmm.
It sure doesn’t appear so.
They were making raids and deporting them for about 2 weeks and MALDF got in their face and now it's back to , see no evil again. It's hopeless until we get some enforceable laws.
>The only reason why they want these guys to vote is so the Dems can get elected. Give me a break.<
Give ME a break, if you will. I don't think it's necessarily a Demoncrook device. Corporations, farmers, ranchers, small business and restaurant owners, etc., etc. all vote, and they want to pay lower wages, hence they hire the illegals. I cannot think of any other reason for allowing our borders to remain open. If these jobs were not available to them, there would be far fewer invasive illegal immigrants to pay SS, SSI, rent subsidies, and food stamps to. And more American citizens would be working today.
The laws are enforceable and the BP proved it. Unfortunately, those evil Americans in MALDF and Washington stoped the LEO's from enforcing the law.
Nope, there is nothing wrong with the laws, just the idiot Americans in Washington.
The laws are there, they are being ignored for politics and threats.
There is a difference between voting for BENEFITS, which is what I was commenting on, and allowing illegals to stay here. I was merely saying that Democrats wanted to give illegals the vote and give them benefits in order to get illegal's votes.
The topic of this thread shifted along the way. Sorry for the confusion.
That's what I just said.
Thats why we need federal mandates like we have with the drug laws.
We have those mandates; Washington just won't allow us to enforce them.
At a snap of their fingers, the idiot Americans in Washington could stop the enforcement of all Federal Drug laws. It's all about power and politics.
Yes, but the point I was trying to make was that many of the people who hire those illegals for greedy purposes are people who vote Republican and may have voting influence over their illegal employees. Granted, the illegals do out number the employers, so I guess it could be more than a toss up. But I think it's more bi-partisan than at first thought.
I'm watching.
Not exactly.
After federal Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs California Att. General Lungren (who had filed the request) said he'd appeal. Pfaelzer had been sitting on Prop 187 since late 1994. I remember waiting and waiting along with millions of other Californians.
Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997 and promptly forgot about it, it seemed. Davis was elected governor in 1998. In 1999 Davis and other opponents of Prop 187 arranged for mediation with the 9th District Circuit Court.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a suit in the California's Supreme Court.
"California's Supreme Court unanimously denied review of a suit by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a conservative tax-reduction organization, that sought to force Governor Gray Davis to end mediation of Proposition 187 and instead defend Prop 187 in court."
California's Supreme Court did not rule on Prop 187.
"In return for [Davis] dropping the appeal, the opponents of Proposition 187 [dropped] further challenges to the measure."
http://www.visalaw.com/99aug/26aug99.html
LMAO! Since when are single mothers responsible for their actions...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.