Arizona now Texas!

This is a discussion on Arizona now Texas! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; DALLAS — Texas Republicans adopted another get-tough policy on immigration and bilingual education Saturday that some say will make it hard for the party to ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: Arizona now Texas!

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,218

    Arizona now Texas!

    DALLAS — Texas Republicans adopted another get-tough policy on immigration and bilingual education Saturday that some say will make it hard for the party to attract Hispanic voters at a time when the Texas population is turning increasingly Latino.

    The platform encourages state lawmakers to create a Class A misdemeanor criminal offense “for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the State of Texas,” and to “oppose amnesty in any form leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

    Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen “with no exceptions.” The platform calls for the end of day-labor work centers and emphasizes border security, encouraging “all means … (to) immediately prevent illegal aliens.”

    The party's education platform calls for the end of federally sponsored pre-kindergarten, and opposes any mandatory pre-kindergarten or kindergarten.

    “We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development,” it says.

    Bilingual education should end after the third year, according to the platform, and non-U.S. citizens should not be eligible for state or federal college financial assistance.

    Opponents challenged party members with differing views to make their voices heard.

    “Your party platform is your brand. It represents your values and beliefs and what distinguishes you from Democrats,” said state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, chairman of the 44-member Mexican American Legislative Caucus.

    “Republicans who don't agree should speak out and take a stand for the sake of humanity,” he said. “What they need are guts, or ganas, and not artful spin that's a cheap form of ignoring the single biggest problem affecting the Republican Party.”

    Hispanics will make up 78 percent of Texas' population growth over the next 30 years, compared with only 4 percent for whites, according to demographic projections.

    Minority children already make up 66 percent of the state's 4.8 million public school enrollment — and Hispanics could surpass whites in the state's overall population by 2015, estimates show.

    Not one of the state's 181 legislators is a Hispanic Republican.

    “The figures are irrefutable. I am extremely concerned,” longtime Republican advertising executive and political consultant Lionel Sosa said of his party's future.

    Need to reach out
    GOP primary voters booted out the only statewide Republican Hispanic elected official this spring when they rejected Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo.

    The party must do a better job of drawing Hispanics or what is now “a serious problem,” Sosa said, could turn fatal.

    Within a dozen years, Latinos could be electing Democrats “because Democrats have the right message and Republicans have the wrong message,” Sosa said. “I don't think it will happen. If it happens, then Texas will turn into a Democratic state and once Texas turns Democratic … We'll never elect a Republican president again.”

    “But I'm not gloom and doom about that. I believe that survival drives the culture. Things will change when more Republican candidates get it,” he said. “They won't have to make a false choice between security and humanity.”

    It's imperative for Republicans to reach out to Hispanic voters, said GOP campaign consultant and pollster Whit Ayres, president of the American Association of political consultants.

    “If Republicans don't do better among Hispanic voters, we are not going to be talking about how we get Florida back in a presidential election,” said Ayres, of Alexandria, Va. “We're going to be talking about how we keep from losing Texas.”

    Houston GOP delegate Stuart Mayper said he's concerned about the party's relationship with Latino voters.

    “We must reach out to these people. If we don't, it's a big mistake,” he said.

    But he said the party shouldn't water down its principles.

    “Learn English in this country. I don't like going into Wal-Mart and seeing Spanish,” Mayper said.

    He wants to see troops on the border.

    “Close the border. I am not against any Mexicans or anything. Let's slow down the tide. I'm not saying send anybody back,” Mayper said.

    Work visas suggested
    Dolores Fieden, another Houston GOP delegate, is a Hispanic who emphasized the importance of legal migration.

    Seeing her party attract more Hispanics “would be nice,” she said. “But if doesn't happen, it's not because it's not open to them. It's open to whomever.”

    The immigration problem can be solved by issuing enough work visas to fill jobs that U.S. citizens don't want, said Sosa, who has worked for seven GOP presidential campaigns, starting with Ronald Reagan's in 1980.

    “When that happens so much of this emotional rhetoric will subside, and we will be able to carry on a more civil conversation,” Sosa said.

    The party's state leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, “get it” when it comes to issues important in the Latino community, he said.

    “These are the candidates that are doing the right thing,” Sosa said. “What the extremists in the party are doing doesn't reflect on the candidates.”

    ‘Disconnect' with Latinos
    Though he doesn't agree with the GOP platform on certain issues, Sosa said voters generally gravitate toward candidates because of their personalities and positions on issues, not because of party platforms.

    “It's not about the party. It's about what the individual candidate does or says,” Sosa said.

    MALC leader Martinez Fischer believes the GOP's “disconnect” with Latinos is beyond problematic.

    “It's a plague. Republicans have been afflicted with this illness since the 1860s,” he said. “The only difference is their target. Back then it was the Irish and Catholics, today it's Latinos who are largely Catholic — I see a pattern here.”

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    43,825
    Quote Originally Posted by ErnieNWillis View Post
    DALLAS — Texas Republicans adopted another get-tough policy on immigration and bilingual education...

    The platform encourages state lawmakers to create a Class A misdemeanor criminal offense “for an illegal alien to intentionally or knowingly be within the State of Texas,” and to “oppose amnesty in any form leading to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

    Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen “with no exceptions...

    “Learn English in this country...

    He wants to see troops on the border...

    “Close the border...

    The immigration problem can be solved by issuing enough work visas to fill jobs that U.S. citizens don't want...
    No problem with the above...should be the same in all '57' states...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    No problem with the above...should be the same in all '57' states...

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    "Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen “with no exceptions.”

    Which proves that they have no understanding of our Constitution or no regard for it whatsoever.

    U.S. Constitution:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    That is more clear cut than 2A, especially both the legislative history and a subsequent Supreme Court Ruling --United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    I read the entirety of this Supreme Court case in which a man, born in the US of Chinese parents, was denied re-entry to the United States by the then equivalent of ICE, and The Government tried to argue that he was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens, in fact were not in the U.S. Further, they tried to use the racist "Chinese Exclusion Law" of the time, to bolster their case.

    The Supreme Court very carefully reviewed what nationality and citizenship mean, their history, the extensive legislation here by Congress, and common law in the UK.

    The Supreme Court tore The Government's non-case apart.

    It ripped holes right through every argument placed before it for deeming the man to not be a US citizen. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims that the 14th had been intended to apply only to slaves and provided lots of cogent evidence against that particular claim.

    Those of you who swear you are patriots and that 2A must be followed in its literal extreme manner sure are hypocrites when you then turn to the 14th and want to say its words don't mean exactly what they say.

    Could (in theory) the 14th be amended, sure. Will it? Don't hold your breath.

    Please, stop inciting the passage of patently unconstitutional laws because they will make you feel good. No good can come from any of this sort of political mischief.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,094
    I hate to tell you ,but almost all American latinos,and Legal residents or naturalised citisens feel the same way about Illegal aliens as we do,they had to go thru Legal means to become citisens,they pay the same taxes as everyone else and apply for the same jobs,so they look at how they affect their lives.I'm all for it,there are thousands of Illegals popping out anchor babys in South Texas Hospitals every year,as soon as the kid is born they start applying for medicaid food stamps welfare and everything else they can get free
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,218
    Hopyard. I knew I could count on you when I posted this article.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array DaveJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    "Texas Republicans also want to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a U.S. citizen “with no exceptions.”

    Which proves that they have no understanding of our Constitution or no regard for it whatsoever.

    U.S. Constitution:
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    That is more clear cut than 2A, especially both the legislative history and a subsequent Supreme Court Ruling --United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    I read the entirety of this Supreme Court case in which a man, born in the US of Chinese parents, was denied re-entry to the United States by the then equivalent of ICE, and The Government tried to argue that he was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens, in fact were not in the U.S. Further, they tried to use the racist "Chinese Exclusion Law" of the time, to bolster their case.

    The Supreme Court very carefully reviewed what nationality and citizenship mean, their history, the extensive legislation here by Congress, and common law in the UK.

    The Supreme Court tore The Government's non-case apart.

    It ripped holes right through every argument placed before it for deeming the man to not be a US citizen. The Supreme Court dismissed the claims that the 14th had been intended to apply only to slaves and provided lots of cogent evidence against that particular claim.

    Those of you who swear you are patriots and that 2A must be followed in its literal extreme manner sure are hypocrites when you then turn to the 14th and want to say its words don't mean exactly what they say.

    Could (in theory) the 14th be amended, sure. Will it? Don't hold your breath.

    Please, stop inciting the passage of patently unconstitutional laws because they will make you feel good. No good can come from any of this sort of political mischief.
    VCDL Member
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
    Theodore Roosevelt

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    Wo die Notwehr aufhört, fängt der Mord an
    (Murder begins where self-defense ends)
    Georg Büchner

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Duke

    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    I hate to tell you ,but almost all American latinos,and Legal residents or naturalised citisens feel the same way about Illegal aliens as we do,
    Yes, indeed. There is little support for illegal aliens to be found anywhere except in segments of the business world which want to destroy wages for American workers.

    But, this citizenship issue isn't about illegals. It is about our Constitution, our fundamental law, and our national obligation to a variety of treaties and international agreements on nationality.

    The US can and does deport parents of anchor babies, but they, per our constitution retain US citizenship.

    IF the US wants to play with fire, and risk destroying the fabric of our society, we might try to amend our constitution. But then, alls fair.

    Maybe those who want to amend 2A would get a lick in as well. Maybe all manner of other issues that some feel strongly about will get changed in the jockeying for position.

    This talk of denying citizenship to persons born here is not only foolish, it is rather dangerous.

    In the Supreme Court case I provided above, the justices were very very clear about the fact that US citizenship always was a birthright here, even prior to the actual passage of the 14th. That passage of the 14th was a punctuation mark, added in a sense to keep Congress from playing with the historical practice of birthright citizenship.

    If you can find the actual case and take the time to read it---it is quite lengthy-- you will be astounded by the scholarship that went into that ruling. Nothing short of temporary insanity by 5 justices or actual amendment of our constitution will allow any state to do what AZ is proposing or what Texas Republicans are proposing.

    It is all talk. Feel good racist talk. Dangerous talk. Foolish talk.

    Nothing less frankly.

  11. #10
    Member
    Array Queensidecas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arlington, TX
    Posts
    147
    Those of you who swear you are patriots and that 2A must be followed in its literal extreme manner sure are hypocrites when you then turn to the 14th and want to say its words don't mean exactly what they say.

    Please, stop inciting the passage of patently unconstitutional laws because they will make you feel good. No good can come from any of this sort of political mischief.
    I think the confusion about the 14th amendment centers around the manner and use of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" this phrase disqualifies outright the privilege of citizenship to illegals. Most laypersons are ignorant about what a jurisdiction is in legal terms. When talking about a soverign nation's juristiction you are talking about what constitutes the laws and governance that applies to an individual who resides in said juristiction. These do not overlap at the borders of soverign nations. You dont get to create a new jurisdiction by violating the laws of this soverign nation and that is why the 14th ammendment DOES NOT APPLY to illegal aliens.

    http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010...d-paul-on.html
    "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -Suzanna Gratia Hupp

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes, indeed. There is little support for illegal aliens to be found anywhere except in segments of the business world which want to destroy wages for American workers.

    But, this citizenship issue isn't about illegals. It is about our Constitution, our fundamental law, and our national obligation to a variety of treaties and international agreements on nationality.

    The US can and does deport parents of anchor babies, but they, per our constitution retain US citizenship.

    IF the US wants to play with fire, and risk destroying the fabric of our society, we might try to amend our constitution. But then, alls fair.

    Maybe those who want to amend 2A would get a lick in as well. Maybe all manner of other issues that some feel strongly about will get changed in the jockeying for position.

    This talk of denying citizenship to persons born here is not only foolish, it is rather dangerous.

    In the Supreme Court case I provided above, the justices were very very clear about the fact that US citizenship always was a birthright here, even prior to the actual passage of the 14th. That passage of the 14th was a punctuation mark, added in a sense to keep Congress from playing with the historical practice of birthright citizenship.

    If you can find the actual case and take the time to read it---it is quite lengthy-- you will be astounded by the scholarship that went into that ruling. Nothing short of temporary insanity by 5 justices or actual amendment of our constitution will allow any state to do what AZ is proposing or what Texas Republicans are proposing.

    It is all talk. Feel good racist talk. Dangerous talk. Foolish talk.

    Nothing less frankly.
    Hopyard, with all due respect why is it "Feel good racist talk" to want to prevent illegals from benefiting from the fruits of our (legal citizens) labor?

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158

    re: Queensidecas

    Quote Originally Posted by Queensidecas View Post
    I think the confusion about the 14th amendment centers around the manner and use of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" this phrase disqualifies outright the privilege of citizenship to illegals
    No sir, it does not mean what you are claiming at all. Blogs aren't good sources of information, btw.

    The Supreme Court in the case I mentioned (and cited) earlier here, went to considerable length to define what, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and the how and why of its presence in the amendment. I urge you to go and read United States v. Wong Kim Ark in its entirety instead of relying on ill informed bloggers.

    That phrase is in there for only two purposes, and the court clearly indicated what those two purposes are.

    One, the more important and common of the two deals with births here to diplomats who have diplomatic immunity, and thus they and their offspring are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they are born. So if you are the child of the ambassador from Russia, born here, you are not a citizen because your parents held diplomatic immunity. That is what that phase in the amendment means.

    The other group of individual who might have offspring born here but who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they are born would be offspring of invading soldiers. This is what the court was speaking of, and what Congress had in mind when it included the phrase "and subject to the jursidiction," in the 14th.

    Moreover, if you actually read the Supreme Court decision, they go to great lengths so show that the opposite of your hypothesis is true based on English Common law, and based on actual practice here from the day of independence.

    And somewhere in the ruling, is a reference to the offspring of Irish and Scott immigrants who crossed in from Canada and were here illegally, born here being eligible for The Presidency. (I'm not sure the court stated that or if they cited a real life example of this in which a real Presidential candidate (maybe an elected President) was born in that circumstance; born here of illegal immigrants. And at the moment I'm too lazy to go re-read the whole dang ruling to find that point, but it is in there.)

    Again, let's not unwisely promote the passage of unconstitutional laws to make ourselves feel like we are solving a problem. Passage of these proposed laws (even if they could stand) wouldn't solve the illegal Mexican migration problem, and would cause a host of additional difficulties.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array ctsketch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    2,319
    Now all they have to do is classify an illegal immigrant as an invading soldier, lol
    Glock 19
    Kahr PM9
    LMT-M4
    Mossberg 590
    Shodan, Jujutsu

  15. #14
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Thankfully there is legislation of a federal bill with 91 co sponsors to change this open ended amendment.

    Congress Mulls Bill to Revise 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship - ABC News

    I doubt it will pass but I hope it does.

  16. #15
    Member
    Array Queensidecas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arlington, TX
    Posts
    147
    I am very familliar with the case you cited as well as many other constitutional laywers such as Mark Levin who was quoted in that blog. Essentially what it boils down to is that the Supreme Court's rulling in that case is an error that needs to be rectified. Much like how the Supreme Court needs to fix our current situation where the language in 2A "shall not be infringed" is not being adhered to.

    Many injustices exist both as a faulty judgment from past court rulings to rulings that need to be made to secure our liberty in this country. Just because the court is in error doesnt mean we as citizens shouldnt do everything in our power to regain our proper constitutional rights.

    Levin says, “This language requires more than birth within the United Sates.” He points out that American Indians who were “subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship.” He also notes the status of foreign visitors and diplomats who are “not subject to American jurisdiction.”

    If someone is in the US illegally, that individual is still subject to his native country’s jurisdiction.
    "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -Suzanna Gratia Hupp

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. NRA Alert- Arizona Arizona Senator Attempting to Water Down Important Pro-Gun Bill!
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 24th, 2009, 07:49 PM
  2. Arizona Bill HB2474 (heard from Steve Montenegro Member, Arizona House of Representa
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 12th, 2009, 05:05 PM
  3. Arizona carry with Texas CHL
    By tytl in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 28th, 2007, 02:26 PM
  4. Texas Members: Please Contact Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
    By Rock and Glock in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 29th, 2007, 06:34 PM
  5. Arizona - SB1271 Arizona gun safety program
    By Bumper in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 15th, 2005, 10:44 AM