• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Newt right or wrong on his immigration stance in the last debate

jamesrage said:
He was driving a car without a tag and he only had a German ID, he might have been arrested in any other state. Seeing how he is supposed to have his VISA on him, it is not unreasonable for police to take him in when the only thing he produced was a German ID card.A German ID card proves you are a forign national but it most certainly doesn't prove you are here legally.
Click to expand...

He would not have been arrested anywhere else. Local police in other states are not required to enforce federal law. Even the people in Alabama understand this.
 
jamesrage said:
See post 31
Click to expand...

Oh. I hadn't seen that one.

If he didn't have a driver's license, that would be a problem whether he was a citizen or not.

If he couldn't show legal entry into the country, then he had a second problem.
 
justabubba said:
not opposed to reviewing the numbers we allow in as documented aliens
would welcome any action which streamlined the process

but we are talking about people who have entered our nation in violation of our laws
no way should we reward such behavior
after the last amnesty we only got more illegals, hoping for another amnesty

no form of public assistance, including education for any illegal alien of school age, and including any government funded medical assistance, should be provided to illegal, undocumented aliens
and for those who insist that there are too many for us to deport, you are wrong
by withholding government assistance, refusing to issue drivers licenses AND by paying a finders fee to any citizen who correctly advises the ICE/INS of the presence of an illegal in the workplace, we will not have to deal with the illegals. they will find their own way back home, being without means of employment, an inability to drive, no education for their kids, no housing assistance, no food stamps, no publicly funded help. problem solved
that bounty paid to citizens who report illegals who are employed while undocumented will be paid by the fines collected from the employers. a brand new cottage industry

those who leave should be able to get in the line to qualify for documentation. then they should be entitled to any benefits available to any documented alien
Click to expand...

I agree with you except for the bolded sentence. If you are working for a company and you rat out an illegal and your company finds out, you might be receiving the fine money as the last income from that employer that you get. Your post for the most part though rocks.
 
AdamT said:
He would not have been arrested anywhere else. Local police in other states are not required to enforce federal law. Even the people in Alabama understand this.
Click to expand...
Like Dittohead noted, he most certainly would have been arrested anywhere else for driving without a license.
 
AdamT said:
He would not have been arrested anywhere else. Local police in other states are not required to enforce federal law. Even the people in Alabama understand this.
Click to expand...

:shock: :shock: :shock: I cannot believe that you just said that. Federal laws trumps state laws. If the local police are not enforcing federal laws then they are not doing thier job and should be fired ASAP.
 
battleax86 said:
Like Dittohead noted, he most certainly would have been arrested anywhere else for driving without a license.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I've been stopped twice for not having a license. Once with a suspended and once with out any license. Both times I was not arrested, just given a ticket and told to find another way home.
 
I don't think Newt was saying he doesn't want to deport them; He was saying that we as a nation are unlikely to do so. He is correct. A majority of Americans are not right-wing.
The thing that bothered me about Newt's statement "... and if they go to church"
What the piss should that have to do with anything? Did Newt skip the part about seperation of church and state?
He is basically saying that: Well, if you're Christian you can come to America
Do you think he would let Arabs stay for facing Mecca 5 times a day? No! Nor should he. Religion should not be a factor.
 
USAMP1970 said:
Did Newt skip the part about seperation of church and state?
Click to expand...

No, he's just playing to the Christian (extreme) right who insist that the USA is a Christian nation and whose vote he has to get in order to be nominated.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:shock: :shock: :shock: I cannot believe that you just said that. Federal laws trumps state laws. If the local police are not enforcing federal laws then they are not doing thier job and should be fired ASAP.
Click to expand...

Generally federal law trumps state law where they conflict, but that does not turn local cops into federal law enforcement officers. Usually when federal law conflicts with state law that results in preemption -- meaning that the statees are prohibited from asserting jurisdiction.
 
AdamT said:
Generally federal law trumps state law where they conflict, but that does not turn local cops into federal law enforcement officers. Usually when federal law conflicts with state law that results in preemption -- meaning that the statees are prohibited from asserting jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Jurisdiction =/= enforcement.

Jurisdiction defines what areas and/or what times any given enforcement agency can or cannot move into another enforcement agencies "turf". IE it determines who gets to call the shots. Enforcement is just that, enforcement of the laws.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Jurisdiction =/= enforcement.

Jurisdiction defines what areas and/or what times any given enforcement agency can or cannot move into another enforcement agencies "turf". IE it determines who gets to call the shots. Enforcement is just that, enforcement of the laws.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Jurisdiction can be exclusive, meaning that only the designated agency has the authority to enforce the provision in question. In order to accomplish that Congress generally has to make a positive statement that the law preempts state law and assert exclusive authority. In the absence of such provisions state and local LOEs generally have authority to make an arrest for violation of a federal criminal law. However, that is discretionary on the state's part, *unless* there is a parallel state law that mirrors federal law. Accordingly, officers in other states *could* enforce federal laws requiring a foreign national for not having his travel papers, but an officer in Alabama is *required* to enforce the similar state law provision.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not necessarily. I've been stopped twice for not having a license. Once with a suspended and once with out any license. Both times I was not arrested, just given a ticket and told to find another way home.
Click to expand...
Really? When and in what state? In Texas, if they catch you driving without a valid driver's license, that's pretty much a guaranteed arrest.
 
AdamT said:
Not exactly. Jurisdiction can be exclusive, meaning that only the designated agency has the authority to enforce the provision in question. In order to accomplish that Congress generally has to make a positive statement that the law preempts state law and assert exclusive authority. In the absence of such provisions state and local LOEs generally have authority to make an arrest for violation of a federal criminal law. However, that is discretionary on the state's part, *unless* there is a parallel state law that mirrors federal law. Accordingly, officers in other states *could* enforce federal laws requiring a foreign national for not having his travel papers, but an officer in Alabama is *required* to enforce the similar state law provision.
Click to expand...

I would love to know an example of this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would love to know an example of this.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of examples -- mainly in the area of federal civil law as opposed to criminal law -- where enforcement is exclusively federal. This is the big controversy now, with states starting to pass AZ-type laws that mimic civil immigration law. Historically enforcement of civil immigration law was held to be the exclusive jurisdiction of the feds. After 911, the Bush administration cast some doubt on that and, AFAIK, it remains an unsettled question. See http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
 
When in doubt, Republicans nominate the oldest partisan dog - and get smashed in the election. Old Newt would be obliterated in November.
 
joko104 said:
When in doubt, Republicans nominate the oldest partisan dog - and get smashed in the election. Old Newt would be obliterated in November.
Click to expand...

yea, i dont see it like that. for one i believe Ron Paul is the oldest and i strongly believe Newt will easily beat Obama!

i think dems will be heart broken next year when the debates start and Obama, as smooth as a talker as he is, cant talk his way out of this economy, which he said in his own words he would be a one term president come election time if it is not better!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom