Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
"There are still large areas in the country where illegals aren't and the lawns are getting mowed, the hotel beds are getting made and those billions of hamburgers at McDonalds are being served."
There are?
Really?
Where would those be?
Not the Northeast or the Northwest, or the Great Lakes or California or Texas or Florida or the Southeast or the Mountain States.
Where are these "large area of the country" that don't rely upon large illegal communities to do tremendous amount of manual and agricultural labor?
Alaska, I guess. That's large.
Where else?
Estimates are that 10 million are here illegally. I don't think your assumption is correct
The study estimates that the visa overstay population in the United States is at least 3.6 million people, out of an estimated 9 million to 10 million illegal immigrants. (Source)
However, if you attempt to say that illegals here are "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the US gov't, or the governments of the respective states, then we legally cannot prosecute them for commiting misdemeanors or felonies, right?
This is new territory to me, and I could be miles off base, but I really don't think we want to go there to solve a problem with our own socialistic handout programs.
Well I live in the Northeast and in an area not populated by illegals yet. We have hundreds of small farms throughout the state, tourist attractions like Indian casinos and guess what, we're doing just fine and the work is getting done.
3.6 million out of 9-10 million isn't most, but it isn't insignificant either- over one-third of illegals.
"There are?
Really?
Where would those be?
So is this to say that the figure 20 million illegals (that some say is WAY HIGH) are serving 280 million hamburgers, cutting their grass, slaughtering their pigs at rendering plants, cleaning toilets?
That is a red herring post if I ever saw one!
Yep, some guy has that opinion.
You do too.
Go ahead and try to, just like that, with a snap of Congress' fingers, legislate Marbury v. Madison out of existence. For that is what you are suggesting.
Did you just see the humiliating face-slam-into-the-mud that President Bush and his team took over the Harriet Miers nomination, when suddenly the whole base of support was wrenched out from under them?
Now think about the same thing that happened to FDR when he tried something LEGAL: packing the Supreme Court.
Go ahead and try to override Marbury by a simple majority vote in Congress. You think it will work. I am telling you that what will happen is you will lose on the issue, the people will side with the Supreme Court, and your party will be driven from office.
Of course, I may be wrong. You may win.
In which case I guarantee you that the next time Democrats win back the Congress, which will happen eventually, they will enact their entire agenda, and there will be no such thing as judicial review. Nationalize property? DONE! We, the Congress, say that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review it. Indeed, a "No Constitutional Review" clause would become the standard text of every piece of legislation.
Wouldn't it be grand if it were that easy to reduce the tripartite structure of government to just Congress and the President? Sure, if you're a Jacobin.
Anyway, good luck with that.
It'll never fly.
The American people will never buy a simple Congressional veto of the Supreme Court, and they will not buy letting Congress override Marbury v. Madison by a simple sentence: "We say the Supreme Court has no constitutional review power over this law."
I don't see our spineless crapweasels in Washington doing anything about this until the heat is turned up. Way up.
I gotta admit, though, it was novel and a different approach. I had never heard it before.
I really don't think we are going to fix this situation till we find a populace and a congress who have courage enough to tell both the labor union Buchananite xenophobes and the leftist welfare advocates both to piss off. Both equally. I don't see it happening.
".........regularize everyone on the US side of it."
Wrong.
No Shamnesty.
"Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction?"
Because the Indian tribes were still in possession of half of the land of the United States, and were born within the United States, but they were still their own nations, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And nobody wanted to make the Sioux and the Apache citizens by the amendment.
That's why.
Same bit about "indians not taxed" being excluded from the Census in the Constitution of 1787.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration."
ABSOLUTELY. The amendment to the constitution which allows this was enacted to provide citizenship to freed slaves after the civil war, not to extend a gravy train to an army of invading Goths and Vandals.
"Well I live in the Northeast and in an area not populated by illegals yet. We have hundreds of small farms throughout the state, tourist attractions like Indian casinos and guess what, we're doing just fine and the work is getting done."
I live in CT and we are absolutely swamped with illegals.
"It is not his opion it is a FACT that Congress can define jurisdiction."
Of course Congress can. Nobody disputes that.
But that is limited.
Congress cannot remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review acts for Constitutionality. It can remove access to the courts on the merits of an issue, but it cannot remove from the Supreme Court the power to review a law to say whether or not it's a legal law under the Constitution.
After living in Arizona and seeing the problem up close and personal I think that's a splendid idea.
Which state?
I live in Connecticut. Illegals do all of the menial work.
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.