Texas Anti-Immigration law has exceptions

[faethor]

It's okay to hire illegals as maid, lawn care, or an in house worker.

My 2 cents -- we don't want the rich to actually pay minimum wage or labor taxes now do we?

 

[Fade]

Hurray for Faethor.
I see you're coming over to the right side.
You finally sees the logic in sending all illegals home.
Good for you!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You finally sees the logic in sending all illegals home.

Why would the guys who want to bust the unions and drive wages down by playing the workers against each other want to send the illegals home? It's all part of the same agenda.

 

[faethor]

Fade,
I always have seen the logic of sending illegals home. My approach differs from 'round em all up' mentality. This approach is one that impacts effect of the problem. I prefer an approach that impacts the cause of the problem. That cause is people who hire illegals taking away jobs for US citizens. This practice creates an unfair economic environment and often doesn't adhere to laws as minimum wage might not be paid nor may taxes. Businesses should be audited on their hirees and hiring practices to ensure US citizens are being hired. This will drive more jobs to US citizens and this will drive illegals home.

For example, here in Minnesota we've seen the Attorney General audit meat packing plants for compliance to existing laws. The Attorney General also drove Chipotle to audit themselves and not continue employment for workers that could not provide valid IDs. IMO this is how this should be handled. Focus the attack on the cause (illegal hiring) moreso than the effect (illegals themselves).

When we punish the illegal but fail to punish the business this allows the cycle of illegal hiring to continue. In this case the business is out a worker for a small period of time but in turn simply hires another illegal.

Now on to Texas. There are already Federal Laws that can be enforced. I wonder what about Texas makes them think they shouldn't enforce these and instead must pass a local state law. And on top of that a state law that's weaker than Federal Law. IMO the problem isn't the lack of laws the problem is lack of enforcement.

 

[Fade]

@ Faethor
"Now on to Texas. There are already Federal Laws that can be enforced. I wonder what about Texas makes them think they shouldn't enforce these and instead must pass a local state law. And on top of that a state law that's weaker than Federal Law. IMO the problem isn't the lack of laws the problem is lack of enforcement."
----------------------------------------------------------

Without realizing it, you've hit the nail on the head.

Texas, nor any other state, does not have the authority to enforce any federal law. That's the whole crux of the matter. Any time a state has tried to do this, they are told by federal judges they are reaching beyond their authority, and to cease and desist. It is the federal government that is not enforcing it's own laws.

Here is a perfect example:
Whether or not you agree with it, there is a federal law passed and signed by President Clinton called DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). I'm sure you know what it is.

President Obama announced last week that he has instructed federal prosecutors not to enforce that law. That act of defiance by Obama has the potential to cause him some serious problems. He can't legally choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, because of the oath of office that he took.

If that were the case, then the next president might say, "I don't think I will enforce Roe vs Wade, or The 1st Amendment, or any other law that he might personally be opposed to."

If a president thinks a law is wrong or should be changed, there is a legal way to do it, but picking and choosing based on his personal preferences is not allowed.

Anyone who thinks a president should have that authority, would regret it the next time another potential bully gets that office. Think Fred Phelps, Nancy Pelosi, Louis Farrakhan or Fluffy McDeath.

State laws get passed when the states and a majority of the population see the federal government not enforcing it's own laws, or overreaching it's constitutional authority. The federal government gets it's authority by what the states have granted it, not the other way around, no matter how much liberals wish it were otherwise.

 

[faethor]

Texas, nor any other state, does not have the authority to enforce any federal law.

That's not quite correct. Texas, Alabama, and Flordia are a couple of states with agreements that allow State and Local Police respond to and enforce Federal Immigration Law. Also, State governments must enforce Federal Laws that are given to them which dictate State action. So indeed there are cases of States enforcing Federal Law.

That act of defiance by Obama has the potential to cause him some serious problems. He can't legally choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, because of the oath of office that he took.

I agree to this in spirit. I think reality is something different. Other Presidents have done that sort of thing prior to Obama. Often in legal circles past actions set a presidence. And yes even against the 'word of the law'.

State laws get passed when the states and a majority of the population see the federal government not enforcing it's own laws, or overreaching it's constitutional authority. The federal government gets it's authority by what the states have granted it, not the other way around, no matter how much liberals wish it were otherwise.

I'd have to disagree. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution establish the Federal government has the ability to control those items enumerated in the Constitution. Other rights are left to the State. Many State laws, perhaps most, have little to nothing to do with Federal Laws. Why? The States are legislating in areas of power which were left to them to control and not to the Federal government.

The Federal Government gets it's authority from the US Constitution. I suppose you can say this is from the States as the States ratified the document. In turn the States gets their rights as those not stated to be granted to the Federal Government or exempted from State government, as laid out in the US Constitution. In addition, States then establish their rights within their own Constitutions. I see an interelationship here that your statement seems to neglect.

 

[metalman]

not continue employment for workers that could not provide valid IDs. IMO this is how this should be handled.

So you would be in favor of requiring an ID to vote also?

Illegal immigrants can still get driver’s licenses in three states: New Mexico, Utah and Washington.

seven states issued them recently – Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

Utah has a two-tiered licensing system, issues a “driver privilege card” to those who don’t have Social Security numbers, and the card is marked “not valid identification for Utah government entity.”

Tennessee ended a two-tiered licensing system, what Utah modeled its laws on, after federal regulators determined that cards were being sold to out of state illegal immigrants.

 

[faethor]

So you would be in favor of requiring an ID to vote also?

Taking your examples into account if there really is corruption such that illegals can easily obtain Driver's License, it's simply a matter of time for the corruption to carry into a Voter ID system. The illegal would then have 2 valid IDs. If anything this is worse. So No.

Voter ID systems do more to disenfranchise voters than they do to encourage voting. States, such as Minnesota, with more lax voting requirements have higher turn outs than states that are more restrictive. The US is a representative democracy and as increasing the % of people voting is where we should be headed. Voting IDs work against our representative democratic system.

 

[Fade]

You realize of course, that that's akin to voting on American Idol.

Under your rules, I could vote once for myself, once for my father, and once for my grandfather. Our first names are all the same and I still own the house that they both lived in. I might have a hard time explaining how I'm still voting at age 127 though. Oh, that's right, they are not going to ask.

So easily you give away the sanctity of the ballot box, and dilute the power of your own vote, just for the sake of winning.

You would be at the head of the protest march if all undocumented voters voted Republican.

You might as well just allow Canadians to vote here too, you know they can at least speak English.
Come one come all, you too, folks over in the cemeteries, vote early, vote often, vote Democratic.

 

[faethor]

You realize of course, that that's akin to voting on American Idol

American Idol one can vote as many times as they want to pay. Voting in a US election is currently accompanied by an identification and it's 1 vote per person.

Under your rules, I could vote once for myself, once for my father, and once for my grandfather.

Yes you could commit voter fraud in our current system. If you look across the USA the charges of voter fraud are slim to none compared to the number of voters.

Now the idea of a Voter ID doesn't remove the possibility of fraud. It simply moves the point of fraud. In a Voter ID system you apply for a card with your father's name and a card with your Grandfather's name. Having obtained them you then cast 3 votes. In short same difference.

You would be at the head of the protest march if all undocumented voters voted Republican

Get a bit real here. If you paid attention in the last election Minnesota turned out the local Dems for Republicans in the State House and Senate. Minnesota has one of the most liberal voting laws, along with same day registration. Minnesota is nearly at the top of % turn out. However, there are no protests here to tighten election laws. And certainly I'm not working to go let alone head up changing our election laws. False ad hominems work against your argument.

 

[metalman]

So you would be in favor of requiring an ID to vote also?

Taking your examples into account if there really is corruption such that illegals can easily obtain Driver's License, it's simply a matter of time for the corruption to carry into a Voter ID system. The illegal would then have 2 valid IDs. If anything this is worse. So No.

Illegals registered to vote (in Texas) are identified because they tell the judge they are non-citizens, to be excused from jury duty, about 3% or those being summoned for jury duty give that excuse.

an applicant may register to vote, even without a drivers' license or Social Security number by supplying a utility bill or pay stub.

If paying for electricity in America, means I can vote, then being a registered voter should be enough proof for employment purposes. At least an illegal actually works when you hire one, unlike the union guy who stands around drinking coffee, complaining "that's not my job!"

 

[faethor]

Illegals registered to vote (in Texas) are identified because they tell the judge they are non-citizens, to be excused from jury duty, about 3% or those being summoned for jury duty give that excuse.

Trusting your source, even though you didn't cite it. It'd be even more interesting to see what % of those 3% registered actually cast a ballot.

 

[metalman]

Illegals registered to vote (in Texas) are identified because they tell the judge they are non-citizens, to be excused from jury duty, about 3% or those being summoned for jury duty give that excuse.

Trusting your source, even though you didn't cite it. It'd be even more interesting to see what % of those 3% registered actually cast a ballot.

3% was a GAO study of 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls in U.S. district court. Texas has reported similar numbers of excused for state courts.

The federal I-9 form that employers must complete for all new employees provides a list of documentation that can be used to establish identity—includes a voter registration card as one of the accepted pieces of identification. A voter registration card is trivially easy to obtain, just stop by an ACORN office.

How many actually voted would be an interesting number, however that requires a Democratic County Attorney to check the name against those voting in recent elections, and none are very interested in investigating the matter.

 

[faethor]

A voter registration card is trivially easy to obtain, just stop by an ACORN office.

True and I hope you do realize that ACORN was found to be within it's legality to collect voter registration cards. And the law says any card filled out must be returned. It doesn't discount 'Mickey Mouse' as the entry. It appears ACORN followed the letter of the law.

How many actually voted would be an interesting number, however that requires a Democratic County Attorney to check the name against those voting in recent elections, and none are very interested in investigating the matter.

Egads Metalman get real.

There are 254 Counties in Texas. Let's take the last 5 elections can you honestly tell me there are 0 Republican County Attorneys? And if there is only 1 why did s/he not take action? And pray do tell me why did the Republican election judges not take action either? Blame the Dems for tricking you all with illegal votes all you want. Neither have Republicans taken actions. Texas has had a Republican State Attorney General since 1999 and he's found what for illegal voting, jackshit. Pray tell me when the Republicans will get off their high horse and actually do something about this 'run away problem'? Nah the Republicans get too much mileage off of poll fear mongering and realize this ain't a problem.