When the "Truth" becomes a "Hate" crime.

OCRegister.com ^ | Oct 21, 2006 | Norberto Santana, Jr

[newzjunkey]

but it is definitely incorrect to say that an immigrant may not vote.

While there's a connotative canard used by the Rats that plays word games with terms like "immigrant" or "alien" or "illegals" or other immigration terms, they love to blur the lines to include all immigrants regardless of legal status.

An immigrant is not yet a citizen. They may be a resident alien (e.g. a legal immigrant) but only citizens (naturalized or native-born) can legally register for voting in CA.

[newzjunkey]

They can consider themselves immigrants all they like. They are actually citizens. The first statement is the clarification and important context.

If the intent of letter was truly harmless and only to warn off voter fraud, we have to assume the controversial portion was sloppily worded but likely accurately worded just the same.

This "raid" (which is a bit extreme) will be a witch-hunt to find out if the intent of the letter was intimidation of legal voters.

Since Tan emigrated from Vietnam and is a naturalized U.S. Citizen, this could be an interesting case. We should not overlook, however, that he was very recently a Democrat candidate against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R), 46th District.

[Safetgiver]

and the whole thing must be investigated....it was brought to court and the decision was, "Yes, there were illegal votes cast, but there weren't enough to overturn the result." They took a representative number of ballots and predicted what the total of illegal MAY have been.

[Safetgiver]

Before she was elected,....she had an Anglo name. What it was, I don't remember. She changed it to pander to the Hispanic vote.

[Tenniel]

Regarding "... si su residencia en este país es ilegal o es emigrado..." and your English version "if your residence in this country is illegal or if it is emigrated...":

You're exactly right that "emigrado" is a noun ("emigrant"), rather than a participial adjective, and refers to the reader. The confusion comes with the second "es," which also refers to the reader (this time meaning "you are" rather than "it is").

The Spanish use of the formal third-person pronoun "usted" (abbreviated "ud.") to address the reader requires the matching third-person singular form ("es") of the verb "ser" ("to be"). As a result, it's easy to correlate "es" with "ilegal" in the first instance and to miscorrelate it with "emigrado" in the second.

The Spanish writer could have eliminated any chance of misunderstanding simply by repeating "usted": "Se le avisa que si su residencia en este país es ilegal o si ud. es emigrado..." ("You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or if you are an emigrant...").

Just a pair-o'-pennies from someone who does this stuff for a living.

[Polybius]

What stumps me is that after all the hard work exhibited by the reply and, hopefully, some education along the way, the author paradoxically ends with:.........Amerigomag

"Informing a "citizens of the United States who is otherwise qualified by law to vote" who happens to be an immigrant."........... Polybius

************

Webster Dictionary:

Immigrate: To come into a country of which one is not a NATIVE, for the purpose of permanent residence.

Immigrant: One who immigrates; one who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence; -- correlative of emigrant. Syn. -- See Emigrant.

Emigrate: To remove from one country or State to another, for the purpose of residence

Emigrant: One who emigrates, or quits one country or region to settle in another

************

Thesaurus - Houghton, Miflin Company:

Native : person BORN in that country. Antonyms: immigrant.

************

What stumps me is that after all the hard work exhibited by the reply and, hopefully, some education along the way, Amerigomag can't grasp the concept that "citizen" defines your civic rights within a country and "immigrant" (as oppossed to "native born") defines how you ended up in that country once upon a time.

Let's repeat that.

The word "citizen" defines your civic rights within a country.

The word "immigrant" defines how you ended up in that country once upon a time.

Now, class, let's use these words we have learned in a question and answer session.

Is Arnold Schwartzenager an immigrant to the United States?

Yes, Arnold Schwartzenager (straight out of Webster's Dictionary) came "into a country of which one is not a NATIVE, for the purpose of permanent residence". Arnold Schwartzenager is and will always be "an immigrant from Austria".

Is Arnold Schwartzenager a U.S. citizen?

Yes, he is a naturalized citizen.

Is Arnold Schwartzenager eligible to be elected President of the United States?

No. Arnold Schwartzenager is an immigrant from Austria, he is therefore not native born and the Constitution specifically states that only native born citizens can be President.

So Arnold Schwartzenager is a U.S. citizen but can not be President because he is an immigrant from a foreign country?

Correct.

But a U.S. citizen that is native born and not an immigrant from another country can be President?

Correct.

So, being a citizen and being an an immigrant from another country are two separate issues?

Correct.

So, like, in The Terminator, if Arnolds travels back in time and brings his own pregnant mother to the U.S. to give birth and he then is native born instead of an immigrant from a foreign country, can he then be President of the United States?

Well,....ummm.... yes, but that is making things way more complicated than they need to be.

[Polybius]

Will someone please use the letter and revise it so that we can hand it out with it being considered tampering. I think at most it is the deletion or addtion of a word... The sub text of the letter is very valid...

Where the author of the letter screwed the pooch is in the addition of the text I have put in boldface in the English translation below:

"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime...."

In the English version, you would only need to delete "or you are an immigrant".

In the Spanish version, you would only need to delete "o si es emigrado".

[Rurudyne]

B.T.W.: just to say it, "Thanks for the discussion." I'm really enjoying it! ^_^

Actually, since we are no longer governed by the literal Constitution but rather by a built up list of things we have gotten away with in the past that should have always been illegal in one form or another (such as the "lawful" separation of the races––not just in matters of public accommodations but also in matters of legal support for all forms of segregation) we do not factually live under the Rule of Law but rather a conglomeration of traditions we mistakingly call laws (many of which are patently unconstitutional).

Again, there is no authority in the Constitution as amended that empowers the federal to enumerate civil rights that Persons who are not functionaries of the government cannot disparage. This includes the Voting Rights Act ... someone who isn't a functionary of the government can misrepresent the facts (not being under oath) provided no actual crime is done.

Of "officials": we should include, logically, individuals working to achieve elected office while they are doing so.

Naturally, a State may lawfully define civil rights as per Article 4:Section 2 that ordinary Persons may not disparage (given explicit limits on State power to do specific things and recognizing the enumerated rights which were applied to the several States via the 14th) since there are few implicit or stated limits on that power as there is on Congress' power as enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

I'm not saying it's morally or ethically ok, and I did use the term reprehensible jerk to describe Persons who abuse the trust of their fellow citizens by trying to mislead them about their rights.

As for your example: if the Democrat dirty-trickster were or were not an associate of a political campaign makes a big difference. While you might be able to charge a truly private citizen with misrepresentation or mail fraud arising from such a mailing, the act itself would not be a matter for federal concern otherwise.

If this reprehensible jerk started his letter: "Hi! I'm Dave Smithson, a private citizen (not a lawyer) living in Westfort, and I'm sending you a reminder that...." (i.e. he was not misrepresenting himself as something other than a private citizen) then you probably couldn't charge him with any crime that was actually lawful to consider under our true laws (and not the often asinine traditions built up around them).

This proverbial "Dave Smithson" would still be an unqualified jerk ... but that isn't illegal.

Also, have you considered that once one is a "citizen" they are no longer a legal immigrant? That the status of "citizen" trumps and overrules "immigrant" ... effectively erasing it from their legal description in all cases EXCEPT Persons who seek to become President, Vice President or (presumably) Speaker of the House?

In other words, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

Apart from a that one exception and special considerations respecting age or criminal misconduct, no citizen is legally any different than another no matter if they were born here or got here as fast as they lawfully could.

I really think you are over blowing even this case since the letter previously addressed "citizens" so that they are clearly set apart from "non-citizens" who are the implied point of discussion in the following lines.

I would challenge you to realize that citizenship trumps place of origin––if native or immigrant.

Also, as I said, the OPINION in the Civil Rights Act Cases WAS deplorable even if it was the right decision. On the strength of this one whole-hog overturning of a Civil Rights Act (a function of the OPINION not demanded by the facts of the cases presented––none were addressing discrimination sponsored by a State) several of the several States proceeded to act (essentially) as if ALL Civil Rights Acts were unconstitutional ... or at least disparage-able. The end result was very much governing in accordance to what they had gotten away with in the past.

One good example is a situation I've encouraged another fellow about elsewhere. His grandfather lived in a poor southern town that only offered a High School to whites. Now, as odious as the Plessy ruling was it should be noted that it was a marked step up from what some Southerners wanted (i.e.'separate and intentionally, dramatically unequal'). Under even that odious ruling and opinion, this man's hometown had only the following options:

A) NO public High School for anyone.

B) An INTIGRATED public High School.

C) Separate public High Schools.

There was no option "D) A public High School for whites only." under the laws that existed at the time.

In light of that, I've encouraged this man to find classmates of his grandfather's (there are a few of them still alive) to bring suit under the auspices of Plessy (the law that was recognized at the time) in order to address the failings I've proposed with Justice Bradley's horrible rant––to essentially point out in a court of law what even Chief Justice Warren's fatuous opinion in Brown did not (another correct decision but lamentable opinion): that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 may have been overreaching in forbidding all forms of discrimination but it was hardly totally unconstitutional: it's restrictions and fines being perfectly legal to be applied to officials of the government (including ALL lawyers who are legally officers of the court).

So yes: theoretically it is true that blacks shouldn't have had to faced so much injustice (much of it arguably worse than suppression of their rights to vote ... actual perversion of justice itself): and I've suggested that we finally recognize it rather than continue to live with Chief Justice Warren's legal turd that reduces the whole reason why segregation is unconstitutional to the way it makes Persons FEEL.

Finally, your last example is not workable: if the real letter in question had already made the distinction of "citizens" before discussing non-citizens. There is no comparing "immigrant" (non-citizen being implied) to "black" (which is racial concern rather than a legal distinction like "citizen" v. "non-citizen" ... or even "felon").

Even in the case of felons it would not be true to say in every instance that such are forever forbidden to vote in any election. Several States do allow for amnesty after a time (how ELSE do you imagine that Democrats believe that most felons would vote for them? It isn't just from wishful thinking).

I would assert that such a letter as you describe, or rather a similar document to remind felons they couldn't vote (a possible future need when considering the behavior of our legal and political classes) wouldn't include any reference to race because there is no equivalence to "felon" and "black" as there is among non-citizens ineligible to vote.

It really isn't an assumption at all that we are speaking of ... not like it would have been had there been NO MENTION of "citizens" previously.

[Amerigomag]

Thank you.

[Polybius]

B.T.W.: just to say it, "Thanks for the discussion." I'm really enjoying it! ^_^

Thanks.

Actually, since we are no longer governed by the literal Constitution but rather by a built up list of things we have gotten away with in the past ...

I agree. That is why I feel that words have to have meaning or else the law means whatever the chicken entrails diviner in black robes wants it to means.

Also, have you considered that once one is a "citizen" they are no longer a legal immigrant? That the status of "citizen" trumps and overrules "immigrant" ...

However, as I pointed out before, the term "immigrant" is so extremely vague that the U.S. Government avoids the term as a legal status and, instead, uses the precise terms of "Illegal Alien", "Resident Alien", "Non-Resident Alien" and "Naturalized Citizen" for all individuals that are not native-born citizens.

"Immigrant" refers to "how you got here" as does such terms such as "Mayflower Pilgrim" or "Forty-Niner" or "Settler".

Even 50 years after a pioneer settler had unhitched his covered wagon and had first broken sod on virgin land and after a metropolis had grown around him, an "Original Settler" was still an "Original Settler" in that community.

Likewise, Arnold Schwarzenegger will always be an "immigrant from Austria" as opposed to "native born".

The original text in Spanish used the term "emmigrant" which is even more confusing.

You can not "immigrate" to Place X without also "emmigrating" from Place Y. So you can say that the terms, for most practical purposes, are interchangable.

However, in this paritcular case, it creates even more confusion in the mind of the recipient because, even if that American Polybius is arguing with other Americans on Free Republic about what the word "immigrant" means in America, there is no doubt that, in the rest of the World, the words "emmigrant" means that you left the land of your birth to live in another country.

Regardless of how Americans butcher their own language, a person that left Mexico to live in another country will always be an "emmigrant" as far as Mexicans are concerned and Arnold Schwarzenegger will always be an "emmigrant" as far as Austrians are concerned.

When the Mexican-born naturalized American citizen reads the phrase "o si es emigrado" ("or if you are an emmigrant"), that Mexican-born naturalized citizen thinks, "Yep. That's me. I emmigrated from Mexico on July 27, 1993."

The letter, in effect, is equivalent to that joke letter that makes e-mail rounds before every election that you are supposed to send to your friends in the opposite party telling them that, this year, the elections have been changed from Tuesday to Wednesday.

In this case, however, the letter was actually sent and the Attorney General of California is not amused.