Posted on 01/12/2005 11:57:12 AM PST by VU4G10
|
NAFTA was passed by a democrat controlled congress and signed by President Clinton.
Don't confuse them with facts.
http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/usmxlaw/usmjnm10.htm
Its not a "policy", its in the Constitution.
No more Spanish language on our airwaves, billboards, newspapers, and government offices
I firmly oppose this. Any business is free to operate in any language they please. By what authority can the Federal Government tell a business they can not advertise in spanish, nor speak spanish? And by the limitation in your post, I guess the use of other languages is just fine. Just no Spanish.
I repeat, NAFTA was passed by a democrat congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
bump
NAFTA was passed without any strong democratic support. It was an issue (like trade) where support/opposition fell along class lines. The Black Caucus hated it. The remaining blue collar democrats hated it. The Democratic base hated it. Only with the support of Newt Gingrich and the GOP congressmen did Clinton get it through. Without them it would not have passed.
The New Democrats never gave a damn about blue collar Americans. After all, didn't the New Economy make smokestack industry obsolete ? Couldn't all those workers take HTML and Visual Basic ?
Politically it was a mistake. A 'victory' over your own base doesn't exactly motivate them to turn out for you.
Thats right it was signed by a lib and it was the libs who first invited these losers in and now Bush won't do anything to save AMERICA.....get it, NOT mexico but he has a mandate to save AMERICA!! AND UPHOLD THE LAW!!
I have not said that NAFTA was a good deal. I was correcting the poster about who brought it about.
Be honest about who brought NAFTA about.
It was Clinton and Newt Gingrich working together to defeat the Democratic base in Congress who got NAFTA passed. It was all GOP congressmen and a few Democrats who supported NAFTA. It was Clinton betraying his own base.
Ahhh did you read my response? I said it was a lib who brought the losers (illegals) in and Bush has a mandate to get the losers out!
And I have no problem with Spanish on our airwaves.
Marianna Fabiani in "El Mundo de Mariana" is my new love.
I've got big problems with the mamby-pamby approach to illegal aliens by Bush, but I fail to see the problem with NAFTA. But then again I'm one of those crazy hardcore free traders.
Done.
Depends on whether you consider illegal aliens 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US. I do not as they have no official identity, much less have permission to be here.
The Constitution makes no mention of the citizenship of the parents. I clearly states that anyone born here is a citizen.
I would support a Constitutional amendment changing the citizenship clause to include that one parent must be a US citizen, including excluding those born here to legal immigrants.
I'm not arguing we should.
The Constitution makes no mention of the citizenship of the parents. I clearly states that anyone born here is a citizen.
It clearly states that anyone born in the US AND who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Thus the ambiguity.
However, you're right it will take some clarification by Congress to prevent further abuse of this amendment.
Of course illegals are subject to the jursidiction of the US Government. If they were not, then they would be immune from any type of prosecution as they wouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the US.
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.