Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[Kuciwalker]

Probably aren't allowed to discriminate based on where somebody was born, though. So might have to simply make US citizenship harder to acquire after residency than it is currently.

Uh, yeah, there's that pesky 14th amendment to deal with. Do you really think granting different rights to people based on where they were born is a good idea?

[Felch]

They can't become President.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's acutally more based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV

[KrazyHorse]

In the context of virtually unrestricted immigration and applying specifically to benefits which can be acquired without real contribution testing then I don't see the problem with it except as far as slippery slope arguments go.

The point is that you want to avoid an adverse selection problem. There are a few ways to do this. The most obvious one is to restrict benefits to recent immigrants, or to all immigrants. Restricting benefits like food stamps, medicaid etc. to all immigrants is the strongest disincentive to adverse selection. If you want, you can loosen it a bit by imposing a minimal waiting period either through citizenship (currently this is only 5 years IIRC) or by additional residency requirements.

[Felch]

Anyone who moves to a country and waits five years to collect the crappiest welfare benefits in the industrialized world - probably watches Fox News.

ZING!

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know how much of a problem adverse selection would be....because no country (?) has tried unrestricted immigration in the era of the welfare state.

Like I said, it's something you need to think about when discussing the issue. Perhaps 5 years is a reasonable cutoff. But I might note that currently a large number of benefits do not have citizenship testing...and this most certainly wouldn't be a good idea coupled with free migration.

[rah]

As long as there are quotas, no matter how easy you make the legal process, there will be illegals.
And since it's easier to walk here from Mexico, that's where most of them will come from.

[Jon Miller]

I am in favor of open immegration, but would think that benifits don't start until citizenship (which is after some number of years, maybe more than currently is the case.)

For citizenship you would have to prove that your 'family' is overall putting more into society than you are drawing out.

JM

[Darius871]

these later amendments that take power from the people and place it in the hands of the federal government are illegal.

Ok, in all politeness, I recognize that many provisions of the Constitution are fairly vague and open to a wide spectrum of differing interpretations. But in all seriousness (with no snide tone whatsoever, no matter how much your sad perpetual siege mentality may lead you mistakenly assume I'm somehow being hostile, even though I've never once called you a "****" despite ample opportunity), I have to ask: what is your "interpretation" of the below provision?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Please don't respond by reminding me again that you dodged bullets and that automatically makes your opinion superior. Just answer the question directly. Is your position that the 10th Amendment (not the 12th amendment) supersedes an Article of the original Constitution? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

[SlowwHand]

Why do you think amendments are made?

[zakubandit]

Asked before, why don't I stay down? I was trained for that.

Mentioned before, a lot of lies on the internet. No doubt, I gave you enough evidence to back my story up. I haven't seen much about the lawyer and his BAR credentials, or Mr. Physics and his doctorate degree. So on and ladi-da.

Yes, the government can propose changes and additions to the Constitution. Yea we have have checks and balances installed that ensure that nothing will be done without majority approval. Proposal moves its way around the 3 branches, but still must be presented to the people to make their vote. If this is surpassed, or not properly done, then the legislatures passing said proposal would be violating the transparency of government, and the ability of the people to dictate their rights and laws has been usurped. Thus making the republic a failure, and the right of the people to overthrow the current regime and reinstall a suitable government body can be enforced.

What was said, unless I mistook what KH meant, was that all Amendments and articles are able to be changed by a vote of the government. So unless I missed something KH said about the people being involved, not all changes are valid or legal without proper public involvement and vote.

Don't ask me stupid questions. What did my PTSD have to do with anything? Read back to KH talking about my "mental handicap". I also, in case I was misleading, have a unique perspective on public servants, public freedoms, the rights of the government over the people, and on the world at large due to my experiences. Personally, I hate lawyers and I have never met one I liked. I am all for all book knowledge, but experience gives you insight. Hell, libs are trying to get a judge onto the supreme court who has said she prefers life experience over by the book judgments. And also, I don't let people insult my service. I don't even talk to my own mother any more when she questioned my integrity and my service. So if I don't let the woman who brought me into this world talk **** about my service, what makes anyone think I am gonna let them do it? But that's neither here nor there. Case in point, you all disagree that AZ state legislatures can implement laws that would help resolve the massive illegal problem in the state, while not deporting or engaging in foreign affairs. Nothing is gonna change our opinions on the matter. I side with the states, you side with the Fedys.

Open immigration is dangerous without proper, and tight guidelines. If any of you lived near the Mexican border you would know just how it's like. I live in Tucson, a ways from Nogales, but still so many illegals. I went to school with kids who's parents were both illegal. I had a girlfriend who's father was illegal. So on and so forth. They ate up so much tax dollars that they were able to obtain through stupid loopholes. They are ILLEGAL, that's the bottom line. The fact that people want to let them slide is just ridiculous. How bout we let a murderer slide, he commit a crime but hey why not just let him slide. Or a rapist, we can just let him go on with his life because he committed a crime and its OK.

[Kuciwalker]

*whose

[Kuciwalker]

Mentioned before, a lot of lies on the internet. No doubt, I gave you enough evidence to back my story up. I haven't seen much about the lawyer and his BAR credentials, or Mr. Physics and his doctorate degree. So on and ladi-da.

That's because many of us have met each other in person.

[Wezil]

Asked before, why don't I stay down? I was trained for that.

Chump.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, the government can propose changes and additions to the Constitution. Yea we have have checks and balances installed that ensure that nothing will be done without majority approval. Proposal moves its way around the 3 branches, but still must be presented to the people to make their vote.

No? Reread Article V (it's been pasted into this thread twice): all that's necessary for an amendment is 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

No vote by "the people" necessary.