• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boycotts, Vacations, Guns & Money

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

Take a look at Mexico's immigration laws and how Mexico treats not only illegal immigrants, but even legal immigrants.

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators “Smash the State,” and holding signs that proclaimed “No human is illegal” and “We have rights.”

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtail illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

So how is the commerce clause not coming into play yet? States and Cities are trying to place bans to not spend money and directing the groups to not hold events there? Wouldn't that be under intrastate commerce?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

daddy4count wrote:
They can pass right on through to Canada!

:arrow:
Yea Canada is tough to get into lately. Are they discriminating against my rights? Those evil Canadians how dare they stop me from entering into their country. I wonder what they would do if I snuck in.

Oh I witnessed what they do one time I saw someone hop the border fence, WoW!!!! what a take down by the RCMP.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Uber_Olafsun wrote:
So how is the commerce clause not coming into play yet? States and Cities are trying to place bans to not spend money and directing the groups to not hold events there? Wouldn't that be under intrastate commerce?
I'm not sure I see how interstate commerce applies.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

The purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to force States to trade with each other. It was to stop them from, by law, putting up barriers to stop the populace from trading between States.

If the City of Los Angeles chooses not to purchase anything from AZ, that is their free choice. If they mandate that the citizens of LA do not purchase products from AZ, or if they put a tax on products from AZ, the feds can step in, under the ICC and put a stop to it.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
The purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to force States to trade with each other. It was to stop them from, by law, putting up barriers to stop the populace from trading between States.

If the City of Los Angeles chooses not to purchase anything from AZ, that is their free choice. If they mandate that the citizens of LA do not purchase products from AZ, or if they put a tax on products from AZ, the feds can step in, under the ICC and put a stop to it.

The most commonmeaning of the word "regulate " in 1787 was to make regular or to make even. It was the entent of the framers to make sure that the feds saw to it that all trade between the staes was fair and even. It was to make sure that a state would not trade with one state and refuse trade with another.

If the city of the angels does not want to do business with Az, then they will have to explain to their residents why they have blackouts in electricity. They get 25% of it from Az.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to force States to trade with each other. It was to stop them from, by law, putting up barriers to stop the populace from trading between States.

If the City of Los Angeles chooses not to purchase anything from AZ, that is their free choice. If they mandate that the citizens of LA do not purchase products from AZ, or if they put a tax on products from AZ, the feds can step in, under the ICC and put a stop to it.

The most commonmeaning of the word "regulate " in 1787 was to make regular or to make even. It was the entent of the framers to make sure that the feds saw to it that all trade between the staes was fair and even. It was to make sure that a state would not trade with one state and refuse trade with another.

If the city of the angels does not want to do business with Az, then they will have to explain to their residents why they have blackouts in electricity. They get 25% of it from Az.
I think you are incorrect there. The Founders would not have trounced on Liberty to the point of outlawing the choice not to trade. The ICC exists to stop legislated barriers to trade between States.

BTW, the power threat is kind of an empty one unless the city itself buys the electricity and sells it to its residents. I don't know exactly how it works, but I would guess that some public utility buys the power from AZ and other sources and resells it to LA residents.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
rodbender wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to force States to trade with each other. It was to stop them from, by law, putting up barriers to stop the populace from trading between States.

If the City of Los Angeles chooses not to purchase anything from AZ, that is their free choice. If they mandate that the citizens of LA do not purchase products from AZ, or if they put a tax on products from AZ, the feds can step in, under the ICC and put a stop to it.

The most commonmeaning of the word "regulate " in 1787 was to make regular or to make even. It was the entent of the framers to make sure that the feds saw to it that all trade between the staes was fair and even. It was to make sure that a state would not trade with one state and refuse trade with another.

If the city of the angels does not want to do business with Az, then they will have to explain to their residents why they have blackouts in electricity. They get 25% of it from Az.
I think you are incorrect there. The Founders would not have trounced on Liberty to the point of outlawing the choice not to trade. The ICC exists to stop legislated barriers to trade between States.

BTW, the power threat is kind of an empty one unless the city itself buys the electricity and sells it to its residents. I don't know exactly how it works, but I would guess that some public utility buys the power from AZ and other sources and resells it to LA residents.

I am not incorrect. You, sir, need to do some research. Try reading all of the notes taken at the Constitutional Convention. Try reading the ratification debates of the various states. Try reading the Federalist Papers. Try reading the Anti-federalists Papers. Geez.

I'm not sure how it works either, but I do know that LA gets about 25% of it's electricity from Az. From what I understand (not known as fact) it involves a contract with the city itself.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
eye95 wrote:
rodbender wrote:
eye95 wrote:
The purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to force States to trade with each other. It was to stop them from, by law, putting up barriers to stop the populace from trading between States.

If the City of Los Angeles chooses not to purchase anything from AZ, that is their free choice. If they mandate that the citizens of LA do not purchase products from AZ, or if they put a tax on products from AZ, the feds can step in, under the ICC and put a stop to it.

The most commonmeaning of the word "regulate " in 1787 was to make regular or to make even. It was the entent of the framers to make sure that the feds saw to it that all trade between the staes was fair and even. It was to make sure that a state would not trade with one state and refuse trade with another.

If the city of the angels does not want to do business with Az, then they will have to explain to their residents why they have blackouts in electricity. They get 25% of it from Az.
I think you are incorrect there. The Founders would not have trounced on Liberty to the point of outlawing the choice not to trade. The ICC exists to stop legislated barriers to trade between States.

BTW, the power threat is kind of an empty one unless the city itself buys the electricity and sells it to its residents. I don't know exactly how it works, but I would guess that some public utility buys the power from AZ and other sources and resells it to LA residents.

I am not incorrect. You, sir, need to do some research. Try reading all of the notes taken at the Constitutional Convention. Try reading the ratification debates of the various states. Try reading the Federalist Papers. Try reading the Anti-federalists Papers. Geez.

I'm not sure how it works either, but I do know that LA gets about 25% of it's electricity from Az. From what I understand (not known as fact) it involves a contract with the city itself.
Ya know what? I am tired of your arrogance. You start off by giving me a reading assignment (not having one whit of an idea how well-read that I am), and then proceed to say that you don't know how the electricity is delivered.

The city is free to choose from whom to buy electricity--if they indeed are the ones who buy it. The ICC has nothing to do with this. If, on the other hand, private entities are buying the electricity, and then, by law, the city bars them from buying electricity from AZ or tries to put a tariff on AZ electricity, while not taxing electricity from other states, then the feds can use the ICC to stop this.

Of course, the feds could try to use the ICC to tell the city from whom they must buy electricity. However, that would be a misuse of the ICC. Of course, that has never stopped Congress before.

Anyway, this is the second time (in as many days) that you have arrogantly feigned superior knowledge. I don't play those message board games. I have made my point and will move on to something else.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Well, of course they have that right to choose. What I meant to say was that the state of Kalifornia can't tell merchants that they can't sell merchandise imported from another state.

Call me arrogant if you like. I have studied (not just read)these writings and a heck of a lot more anddiscovered that I have had a wrong thinking of the intent of the founding fathers for my entire life.

It matters not how well read you are. If you are thinking wrong, then you need to read on.

I haven't looked into how the agreement works betwen LA and Az, nor do I care to.

I, too, think it is time for you to move on. You will not win a debate on the intent of the founding fathers with me because I have studied this and you, obviously, have not.

C'ya.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

daddy4count wrote:
I understand some of the reasoning behind the boycott...

The only part of the AZ law that I take exception with is the requirement to display proof of citizenship based on what you look like. Face it, there are many Americans with Latino herritage... this is a direct violation of their rights.

Racial profiling is bad methodology in America for that very reason. If all Americans were white it would be easier... but since we are a melting pot of so many cultures it isn't as simple to judge by appearance as it might be in some countries.
You obviously haven't read the law. It specifically states that is not allowed. Are you related to the morons in power in D.C. who have a biasedopinion on the law but won't read it?
 

SCJeffro

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Laughlin, NV / Bullhead City, AZ, , USA
imported post

steveman01 wrote:
I 100%do notagree with Arizona's new law... I stand against tyranny in whatever form it comes in.

Commerce with all, Allegiance with none.

Have you actually read Arizona's new law? If so could you please elaborate on what it is about it you do NOT agree with or what part of it has anything to do with tyranny? I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on this! :shock: (If this is too OFF TOPIC please feel free to PM me)

Jefferson wrote the quote:
I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment
in 1799 to
Elbridge Gerry... He went on to write:
And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance...
He was stating that he did not believe that the US should be interfering in foreign wars for any reason and that is why he wrote that statement and statements similar to it such as The one to Thomas Lomax also in 1799 where he said
well to the progress of liberty in all nations,
but still
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto,
I am not sure how that statement fits in with the not agreeing with Arizona's Law... To me it means we need to stand as a nation first and foremost. Jefferson was a big proponent of looking out for the US before anyone else... he very much had a 'lookin out for number one' kind of ideology... By Standing WITH Arizona (and the United States since the current federal law and Arizona's law are almost carbon copies) we are following along the lines that Jefferson drew... By opposing the law we are almost aligning ourselves with Mexico or as Jefferson himself may put it creating a "diplomatic establishment" with them...
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

daddy4count wrote:
I agree with you.

It is not the rights of the illegals I am concerned with... it is those of us who should not be hassled because we look a certain way or someone believes we are in the wrong.

Sure, a copy can do a lot of things...

Around here a cop can't compel anything unless he detains and / or arrests you (with a few exceptions like providing a license when driving a car)

But I tell you this, the first time an American born citizen with Latino heritage is detained because of the way he looks and because the cop does not consider a drivers license valid proof... there will be an uproar.

Oh wait... that already happened...

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7409929

And any time I get a new job, I have to show a certified copy of my birth certificate proving that I was born in the USA ... just like I had to show to get my Social Security card the first time ... you think I CARE whether or not a non-citizen has to prove that they are here legally? Or that any other law-abiding citizen has to go through the same hoops I have to to prove their birthright? If it removes one or more ILLEGAL ALIENs from this economy, then I will tolerate it as long as the FEDs don't do their job mandated by the Consititution and when it is no longer necessary, then it will be rescended.

And this BS about not using military on the boarder because they are not guards? Hey, if there wasn't anything else for you to do when on active duty, what did you have to do? You were issued a weapon and amunition and put in front of the armory, or the motor pool, or the fuel dump to stand ... wait for it ... GUARD DUTY ... hmmm, seems that I remember something going like this, "I will stand my post until relieved by proper relief" ... oh, wait, that doesn't count.

Ya want a chuckle, go rent the movie, "Born in East LA" starring Cheech Marin and Jan-Michael Vincent.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

okboomer wrote:
And any time I get a new job, I have to show a certified copy of my birth certificate proving that I was born in the USA ...

I am not posting this in argument - please know that.

But I have never been asked to show my birth certificate to get a job and I'll be 53 next month. Also, I have not laid eyes on my SS card since I was 17 - circa Spring of `75.

I WAS asked to get a health certificate to work my first job at a Burger King and I wonder why they don't do that anymore.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

CommonMan101 wrote:
okboomer wrote:
And any time I get a new job, I have to show a certified copy of my birth certificate proving that I was born in the USA ...

I am not posting this in argument - please know that.

But I have never been asked to show my birth certificate to get a job and I'll be 53 next month. Also, I have not laid eyes on my SS card since I was 17 - circa Spring of `75.

I WAS asked to get a health certificate to work my first job at a Burger King and I wonder why they don't do that anymore.
Have you never filled out an I-9? I-9's require proof of identity and proof of eligibility for employment in the US.

Three documents that spring to mind that serve as proof of eligibility are birth certificate, social security card, or passport. There are others. If you have obtained new employment in the past decade or so and not produced a document proving your eligibility for employment, someone has been breaking federal law.
 

CommonMan101

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
123
Location
Dallas, Texas, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
CommonMan101 wrote:
okboomer wrote:
And any time I get a new job, I have to show a certified copy of my birth certificate proving that I was born in the USA ...

I am not posting this in argument - please know that.

But I have never been asked to show my birth certificate to get a job and I'll be 53 next month. Also, I have not laid eyes on my SS card since I was 17 - circa Spring of `75.

I WAS asked to get a health certificate to work my first job at a Burger King and I wonder why they don't do that anymore.
Have you never filled out an I-9? I-9's require proof of identity and proof of eligibility for employment in the US.

Three documents that spring to mind that serve as proof of eligibility are birth certificate, social security card, or passport. There are others. If you have obtained new employment in the past decade or so and not produced a document proving your eligibility for employment, someone has been breaking federal law.

Bold part must be the diff. Been self employed since `94.

Have over 200 bosses currently but if one fires me it's no big deal. I fire and aquire more bosses way morethan they fire me.

And no, when you're a pro... the customer is NOT always right. Gotta do the right thing no matter what.

Still - never have shown a birth certificate for a job. Guess that makes me a dinosaur in light of what you posted.

:cool:
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

SCJeffro wrote:
I am 36 and have had quite a few jobs and never had to produce a birth certificate or fill out an I-9

I have had to produce a Drivers License and SS card every time though.
Quite simply, if you have not been required to complete an I-9 when starting a new job, the employer has violated federal law. Completing an I-9 requires proving that you are either a U.S. Citizen or a legal alien authorized to work in the U.S.
 

SCJeffro

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Laughlin, NV / Bullhead City, AZ, , USA
imported post

Ok, I just looked up the I-9 form... and yeah my employers must have all filled it out or something and I must have just blindly signed it as a "sign here and here and here and here..." kind of thing!

(this is the form right?) http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

I can honestly say I have NEVER filled out that form, I can NOT say for sure that I have never signed that form, JEEZ, I need to pay more attention to what I am signing when I accept a job! :uhoh:
 
Top