Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Mountjoy Initiative To Stop Benefits for Illegal Aliens
Mountjoy for Senate e-mail | 11 October 2006 | Dick Mountjoy for Senate

Posted on 10/11/2006 3:40:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Emphasis theirs
1 posted on 10/11/2006 3:40:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Link to website news of above e-mail
2 posted on 10/11/2006 3:41:37 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (McClintock for Lt. Governor; Strickland for Controller; Poochigian for AG; Mountjoy for Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Great Idea! Will the courts allow it?


3 posted on 10/11/2006 3:47:14 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

hope they allow it...if yes...it owuld be the model for every other state and maybe this would end the invasion of illegals..and th US could regain some sanity!!!


4 posted on 10/11/2006 3:50:34 PM PDT by hnj_00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

It will pass 'til the 9th circus court gets a hold of it...then pow! just like the Arizona voter ID proposition...into the judicial activist's toilet.


5 posted on 10/11/2006 3:51:03 PM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hnj_00

It would be good, but I bet they don't.


6 posted on 10/11/2006 3:56:50 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


7 posted on 10/11/2006 4:00:38 PM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

The courts will throw it out like they did here in Colorado...but keep trying....


8 posted on 10/11/2006 4:05:22 PM PDT by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Youngman442002
I think that is true. If the courts were different, maybe this would stick, but you would probably need to Amend the Constitution to clearly and severely limit the rights of illegals. That would never happen.

Our society is to weak for a move like this. We will continue to let our country go straight to hell in order to maintain our view of ourselves as compassionate human beings and so that the power interests can benefit from cheap labor.

9 posted on 10/11/2006 4:11:42 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Probably yes - Reason: If private citizens have the right to sue, they will probably hire a lawyer to help them. Second, private citizens can put the costs onto the bureaucrat giving welfare to illegal aliens, which means that the private citizen can hire a lawyer on contingency and have the lawyer paid by the bureaucrat when the bureaucrat loses.

In a nutshell, if the trial lawyers can make money suing those who give welfare or other benefits to illegal aliens, the courts are likely going to side with the lawyers, even though the courts could care less about the taxpayers - Re: Proposition 187.


10 posted on 10/11/2006 4:18:04 PM PDT by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Looks good to me!

--

Section 1 - Addition of Article I, Section 26, to the California Constitution Article I, Section 26, is hereby added to the California Constitution as follows:

SEC. 26.

(a) The State shall not authorize or provide to any alien not lawfully in the United States, a driver’s license or government identification card, exemption from nonresident tuition or fees for postsecondary education, grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license; or any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit, unless those benefits or services are required to be provided pursuant to federal law.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “State” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, township, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(c) If any part or parts of this section are challenged in state or federal court, the State shall defend the legality of this section until all appeals have been exhausted and a final judgment is enacted.

(d) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

(e) Any citizen residing in the state of California may sue for injunctive, declaratory, or any other appropriate relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this section. In any legal action to enforce subdivision (a), the burden shall be on the State to demonstrate that the benefits or services are required to be provided pursuant to federal law. The court shall award to a prevailing plaintiff or defendant, other than the State, the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

(f) Any elected official or government official who willfully violates the provisions of this title may be held personally liable for the costs of litigation including reasonable attorney’s fees and actual damages.


11 posted on 10/11/2006 4:44:46 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Bttt!


12 posted on 10/11/2006 4:50:46 PM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
if the trial lawyers can make money suing those who give welfare or other benefits to illegal aliens

About time the scum-sucking lawyers were beneficial to society! We'll use their greed to our advantage. I'm all for this.
13 posted on 10/11/2006 5:56:58 PM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Considering that Prop 187 passed by a wide margin a decade ago and that things have only gotten worse (and more publicized since then), I think this has a good chance of passing as well.


14 posted on 10/11/2006 5:58:36 PM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

Go Dick Mountjoy!! I sure hope so.
Dick is a great guy!!


15 posted on 10/11/2006 6:00:52 PM PDT by pollywog (Psalm 44:5 "Put your HOPE in God, for I will yet praise Him, my Savior and my God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The back door has always been mixed households or family eligibility units. The introduction of anchor babies into the equation has always rendered traditional safeguards ineffectual.

This should be interesting. I'm not holding my breath until the US has the collective, national resolve to include anchor babies as part of routine, deportation orders.

16 posted on 10/11/2006 6:16:02 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

So what happens if it passes? Some judge will toss it.


17 posted on 10/11/2006 7:19:33 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Our troops will send all of the worlds terrorists to hell in a handbasket with no virgins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
I'm not holding my breath until the US has the collective, national resolve to include anchor babies as part of routine, deportation orders.

Good judgment. The alternative would not work out well (guaranteed!)

18 posted on 10/11/2006 8:29:21 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

(sign) most likely.

All we can do is keep throwing propostions at them until one sticks.


19 posted on 10/11/2006 9:22:28 PM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

(sign) == (sigh)


20 posted on 10/11/2006 9:22:55 PM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson