Nevada lawmakers move to protect immigrants

Las VegaS sUN ^ | June 17, 2005 | KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

[bayourod]

"There is an important purpose behind such controls and laws."

And intelligent people with good verbal skills discuss those important purposes, they don't simply say "the law is the law is the law, what don't you understand about illegal."

Most people like President Bush who have delt with the problems and "important purpose behind" the immigration laws for years have concluded that the immigration laws are not working correctly and need to be reformed to reflect reality.

The laws are going to be changed. When they are will you still say "the law is the law" and support the new laws as fully as you support the current ones? You can't have it both ways if you are a strict legalist.

[Jeff Head]

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens

Amen...it was clear at the time what was intended and it is clear now...irrespective of activist Judges or others who push what was not intended upon us all.

[bayourod]

One of the first rules of construing the intent of legislation is that you can not look to statements by the legislators as to what they meant. This is universally recognized by liberals as well as strict constructionist.

Courts will call lawyers down for trying to quote authors of bills as to what they intend the meaning of the bill to be.

That's because each person who votes on a bill (or Constitutional Amendment) has his own reasons and interpretations of the bill.

"Original intent" has to be divined from the circumstances surrounding the enactment, not what people said the intent was at the time.

[bayourod]

"Im sure theyd serve if drafted. "

Like taxes, the draft is not voluntary.

[monkeywrench]

Oh, baloney! That's so much leftist double speak.

Further these people are not subject to our jurisdiction. Mexico is calling the shots. They are given a free pass on many things we would get busted for.

I believe some legislation making the plain intent of the 14th evident to the truth impaired is coming. It wouldn't happen at all, except for the massive flood of people. They're killing the golden goose.

[Madame Dufarge]

Agreed.

Funny how the edicts of unelected liberal Federal judges are hailed by their acolytes as "democratic victories."

The truly constitutional remedy, in the form of a amendment, scares the hell out of them and is to be resisted at all costs.

This from the people who are always screaming about the virtues of "democracy."

[superloser]

That's only your opinion, not the opinion of the courts.

So what? The 14th Amendment permits Congress to provide the legislation and they have. The courts are going by statute, not by the 14th Amendment. As I said in my earlier post - one bit of legislation -or- a Supreme Court case.

Please, no more strawmen. They burn so quickly.

[Jeff Head]

Trouble is, too many on the left actually want a pure democracy which would be the death of this Republic and all it stands for...and I think a lot of them know it too and thus push for it so they can ultimately acquire absoulte power and turn the US into another marxist hell hole...or something approcimating it.

[Travis McGee]

Our children will curse us for our naivete, in allowing this invasion without resistance.

Bienvenidos a Amexica, parte del Union de Norteamerica. Oprima el numero dos para Ingles.

---

U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"

---

Invasion: \In*va"sion\, n. [L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See Invade.] [1913 Webster]

1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.

[Madame Dufarge]

Trouble is, too many on the left actually want a pure democracy which would be the death of this Republic and all it stands for..

Yes, that is their goal and exactly what the Founders rejected.

Which is why they're relying on their buddies in the Federal courts to morph things every so slowly so that the thing is accomplished in deed.

[Jeff Head]

NOw that's packing them in...looks like something right out of Pakistan or somewhere. That's where it leads.

[bayourod]

"They're killing the golden goose. "

As immigration has increased our economy has improved. Immigrants aren't killing the golden goose, they are the golden goose.

[monkeywrench]

Nonsense. People are waking up because they can look around them and actually see the impact this flood is having. Every time they get to pay their property taxes, fight traffic, pay insurance, are just a few of the ways they are reminded.

The subsidies will stop.

[onyx]

Including the illegals? Or just the legal immigrants?

[taxed2death]

"If you're saying:
Immigrants that are legal are good.
Immigrants that are illegal are bad.

The solution is obviously simple; just change the law to legalize the ones who are illegal."

Nice logic there bayourod.

Let's see how this plays out.

People who make withdrawals from the bank legally are good.

People who make withdrawels from the bank illegally are bad.

Yup, I see, let's make bank robbing LEGAL... it sure is easier than actually going after those pesky bank robbers.

[judgeandjury]

As immigration has increased our economy has improved. Immigrants aren't killing the golden goose, they are the golden goose.

And we could accomplish the very same thing with 100% legal immigration and 0% illegal immigration. And yet you continue to support illegal immigration.

[judgeandjury]

The laws are going to be changed. When they are will you still say "the law is the law" and support the new laws as fully as you support the current ones? You can't have it both ways if you are a strict legalist.

Sure, as long as the new immigration laws don't include giving amnesty to illegal alien lawbreakers. If they do, Americans will protest against those laws, like they do against any law they dislike or that they feel is unfair, unethical, or immoral in some way.

[mthom]

Although the meaning of what I wrote as applied to illegal aliens was clear enough let me rephrase. "I'm sure they'd stay in the country if drafted."

[surely_you_jest]

Have you formally registered as a foreign agent of Mexico? If not, why not?

[bayourod]

"People who make withdrawals from the bank legally are good. People who make withdrawels from the bank illegally are bad. Yup, I see, let's make bank robbing LEGAL"

I didn't say that the only reason I dislike bank robbers is because bank robbery is illegal, whereas the anti-illegals are constantly saying that they like legal immigrants and only dislike illegal ones. The only difference is their legal status. In fact a person who is legal today may become illegal tomorrow when his visa expires.

When questioned further on why they dislike only the illegals ones they site reasons that apply equally to legal immigrants. For example the antis will say they dislike illegals because they speak Spanish. But legal immigrants speak Spanish also. So explain why you like legals but hate illegals?