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

To: RainMan
How long did it take to get them to even CONSIDER Obamacare. How is that birther decision going for you? The SC does NOT take cases just because ... I have seen the Newt haters say a lot of stupid things, but I think this one takes the cake.

Newt proposes to make them "legal" but not grant citizenship thereby denying the legal illegal aliens the right to vote. My comment to Newt is "HOGWASH". Once they are legal they will be voting - they already are demanding to vote while still maintaining an illegal status.

In 1992, the City Council amended the city charter to allow immigrants -- regardless of documentation -- to vote in municipal elections. Of the six Maryland communities where U.S. citizenship is not a requirement for voting, Takoma Park, with more than 17,000 residents, is the largest.

Why are you bringing up BIRTHERISM?
145 posted on 11/25/2011 10:10:06 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Cheerio

If you understand what a Green Card is, the Red Card is basically a permanent Green Card. Were what you suggest even a remote possibility of being an issue, it could be done today by a Green Card holder. Assuming that hell froze over and the SC decided to take it up, it would be one of the fastest smackdowns in history. Elimination of the Green Card program (which is what would have to happen in your scenario) would eliminate the ability for the US to allow anyone to enter the country LEGALLY and apply for citizenship. Essentially, citizenship ... and therefore the Constitution, would cease to exist. Like I said, I have heard some serious dumbass strawman arguements before, but this one takes the cake.

I brought up birther as an example of something that upsets a LOT of people, that impacts our country greatly, and the SC will never ever touch it.

Finally, your example of the local elections is sad, but at each level where the D’s implement something like that, a citizen (citizen in this context would mean someone who the court would consider to have standing) has the right to challenge it in court. If those statutes still exist, I can only assume they have not been challenged. Were they challenged and found lawful, then they should have been appealed. Where are they in the appeal process? If nobody is suing, and nobody appealing, then idiocy like that can exist.


161 posted on 11/25/2011 10:34:02 AM PST by RainMan (Newt - An actual plan that solves illegals without amnesty, unlike your candidate. Gingrich/Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

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