California Gov. Gray Davis recall vote nearing reality

[swellman]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/15/davis.recall.ap/index.html

From the article
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A Republican-led campaign to recall California's Democratic governor, once dismissed as improbable, now appears poised to qualify for the ballot -- and to shake up California politics like never before.

The outcome is anyone's guess, and the situation has politicians from both parties scrambling. It promises to be "a wild ride," promises one political consultant.

Gov. Gray Davis was elected in a landslide in 1998 but his approval rating tumbled to 28 percent amid voter wrath over the state's energy and budget crises.
...

Is this really going to happen? People complain about Gov. Davis, but are Californians really going to vote him out?

As the article points out, there is probably little that could be done by a replacement.

For those of us not living in California, watching this debacle unfold could prove interesting.

[Jedi Knight]

Grey Davis is a Marxist thug that circumvented the will of the people when he and one female judge eliminated proposition 187.

Prop 187 took millions of dollars and millions of volunteers and man-hours to push through to become law. Grey Davis, in Marxist style, couldn't bear to see that document of protecting America succeed nor could he stand the will of his own constituents.

I would rather see Bugs Bunny or Santa Clause in the office of governor in California than that commie Grey Davis. The sooner the recall goes through, the better for America.

He won't have a choice but to listen to the will of the people this time. The guy is an anti-freedom deer-tick that won't go away.

JK

[Gem]

What is prop 187?

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
What is prop 187?

Gem

Here is a good article that describes the situation--dated in 1999.

RECALL THE TYRANT!

by H. Millard

There is always a risk of overstating a threat to our liberties, and such overstating can have the effect of turning off good decent people who might otherwise support a move to correct the situation. It is no different with the talk to recall Governor Davis. Is Davis really a tyrant and has he really screwed with our liberties and that which underpins our society?

Well, to understand what Davis has done with his drive-by shooting of Prop. 187 it is helpful to understand a little about the ordering of societies. In simplest terms all societies have a sovereign of some sort who is, by necessity, an authority above individual people in the society. To not have a sovereign would mean that each individual person would be his own sovereign and could "legally" do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted with no regard for the rights of others. Each person would be able to claim absolute authority to take whatever he wanted and to kill anyone who stood in his way and each person would be within his rights to do so because he was the sovereign. This isn't a good plan for a society that contains more than one person.

So, it was necessary to have a sovereign. Now, a sovereign must be "above" individual people in order to have authority over individual people otherwise he is not a sovereign. This sovereign sets certain rules so that society works for the people in society. In countries with monarchs, the monarch is usually the sovereign and, in theory, sets the rules. In the past, such sovereigns, often Kings or Queens, ruled by divine right and their rules were absolute. Their power was claimed to flow from God to them. Taking the will of the people into account was a foreign concept in such a system. As years went by, the people in many of these monarch ruled societies revolted and overthrew the sovereign and established some other version of a sovereign in their place.

One form of society that emerged that brought in a new sovereign was the democracy. In a democracy, the sovereign is the people themselves and all power flows from the people. It is the people who delegate certain of their authority to their elected officials for an efficient ordering of society. However, the people may never delegate their responsibility to elected officials because ultimately what happens in society affects the people themselves in some manner. For example, the people have delegated authority to police departments to protect the people. Whether the police fulfill the duty they they have been authorized to perform or not, the people are still responsible for their own safety and if the police do not fulfill their duty it is the people who will be robbed, murdered and attacked. In other words, even in a society with well established traditions and institutions such as legislatures, police departments, and, yes, Governors, the people themselves still bear the responsibility for protecting themselves and for ensuring that the things that they want done for their common good are taken care of.

To help them with governing themselves, people write Constitutions and laws which set forth their rules so that tyrants can't come along and arbitrarily change things based on what the tyrants want. However, because the people are busy with other things and don't have the time to democratically decide on every issue that needs to be decided, some societies instituted representative forms of government in which the people would elect officials who were supposed to represent the people and ensure that the will of the people was enforced. In theory, it was pretty simple. Instead of each one of us taking time away from our businesses and other interests we would "hire" (via elections) someone to represent our interests. For example, instead of say 1,000 people in a town having to decide on each issue and how every penny would be spent, we had "hired" someone else to do this for us.

However, it was understood that such representatives of the people might go astray and not do what the people wanted. To help prevent this, the people of certain states in the United States reserved the right to themselves to make people made law via the initiative process. Then if their elected representatives didn't make the laws that the people felt they needed, the people could trump the legislative bodies and make the laws themselves.

That's what Prop. 187 was all about. It was the people assembled who saw that the legislators were not making the correct laws to protect the people from illegal aliens. To correct this situation for the common good of the citizens of the state, millions of citizens worked very hard to pass Prop. 187. This initiative was the expression of their will. It was the will of the sovereign--THE PEOPLE. It was law, because the sovereign--the people--said it was law. Period.

Then along came one unelected federal judge who cast her lone "vote" against the votes of more than 5 million Californians and effectively destroyed what the people assembled had enacted. Being a peaceful and law abiding people the citizens then turned to their elected governor and asked him to pursue their rights against this lone judge through the judicial system.

Then on July 29, Governor Gray Davis the elected Governor "hired" by the citizens of California to ensure that their will would be enforced, told the people that he would not take the action that they had asked him to take.

The Governor, in effect, told the sovereign--the people-- to go screw themselves.

Is this enough of a violation for the people to be enraged and call Governor Davis a tyrant and worse and to call for his recall?

Well, King George found he was called a tyrant and he lost the New World for far less. King George just wanted to tax tea. Who could get upset enough over a tax on tea to start a revolution? Why that would be absurd. Right? Wrong! King George the tyrant miscalculated. Big mistake. Governor Davis may have also miscalculated.

Will we soon see representations of the red flag of revolution with the number 187 emblazoned across its face along with the battle cry of this new peaceful revolution "RECALL THE TYRANT" showing up as bumper stickers and posters, and will we see the successful recall of Governor Davis.

Time will tell. It's a difficult propositon to recall a Governor, but if the people are angry enough for long enough a period of time, it can be done.

JK

[Gem]

From what I read in the article, Prop 187 has to do with illegal immigrants.

The real issue, however, is that the Governor didn't support it, even if millions of people did.

First of all, was any survey done that clearly stated that the majority truly wanted Prop 187 to pass?

Second, isn't it odd that you call Davis a tyrant for going against the will of people when Bush did the same thing in Iraq? (And don't go into justifications for the war, I know them already) I do beleive a lot of people protested the war in America.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
From what I read in the article, Prop 187 has to do with illegal immigrants.

The real issue, however, is that the Governor didn't support it, even if millions of people did.

First of all, was any survey done that clearly stated that the majority truly wanted Prop 187 to pass?

Second, isn't it odd that you call Davis a tyrant for going against the will of people when Bush did the same thing in Iraq? (And don't go into justifications for the war, I know them already) I do beleive a lot of people protested the war in America.

Gem

80% of the people in the US supported the war in Iraq.

JK

[corplinx]

They voted him in, they should have to live with him til the end of his term. You get what you deserve. After years of referendums (mob rule) and fascism (smoking bans, gun bans), I say the People's Republic of Kalifornia getting what it deserves with Davis leadership.

[Gem]

80% of the people in the US supported the war in Iraq.

I think that number was after the war.

But what about before the war started?

Gem

[Genghis Pwn]

I applaud this effort to unseat Davis. He is the biggest piece of junk to sit in that office in my lifetime.

The danger is if Feinstein steps in and wins this recall election. If she did, she could then sit in the CA governor's mansion for 10 YEARS, not just eight. She also gets to appoint her US Senate replacement.... :eek:

This could be bad if it backfires.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
They voted him in, they should have to live with him til the end of his term. You get what you deserve. After years of referendums (mob rule) and fascism (smoking bans, gun bans), I say the People's Republic of Kalifornia getting what it deserves with Davis leadership.

The recall is a mechanism to prevent tyrants and dangerous men who may not have been determined so prior to the election to be removed from office. It is perfectly legal and judging from the damage Grey Davis has done to California, I can see why Californians are upset.

Where do we start with the facts? How about just a few:

1) A $38 billion dollar budget deficit, the highest ever in the history of the state and the highest of any state ever in the history of the country.

2) The elimination of Proposition 187, a referendum by 'the people' of California to prevent tens of millions of illegal aliens to invade California. Since the elimination of Prop 187, the quality of life of California has dipped to terminal levels where beaches are now rife with human feces from squatters, the budget is in total disrepair because of the use of public services while the illegals don't pay taxes and have formed an illegal undergound economy, etc etc etc etc.

3) Energy woes that are due to the fact that tens of millions of illegal aliens have plugged into the Californian energy grid and are not paying their share.

4) Giving illegal aliens tax-payer funded car insurance because millions of them were driving around without it, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and personal injury to which US citizens could find no relief.

5) Giving illegal aliens drivers licenses and other forms of ID where those actions are clearly federally illegal (a tool used by the terrorists of 911 to attack America).

6) The overall intent of the massive influx of illegal aliens by Grey Davis was to replace the lawful citizens of California with non-citizens so that they could all vote for the Marxist California regime at various levels and their candidates while being promised open access to the California treasury (as proved above).

Etc Etc Etc

That is why Grey Davis has pissed off every non-Mexican in California. Even African Americans are angry at him because he allowed entire African American communities to be run out of the state due to the impact of the 20 million illegals that land-rushed California in the mid-1990s onward.

JK

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Gem
From what I read in the article, Prop 187 has to do with illegal immigrants.

The real issue, however, is that the Governor didn't support it, even if millions of people did.

First of all, was any survey done that clearly stated that the majority truly wanted Prop 187 to pass?

Second, isn't it odd that you call Davis a tyrant for going against the will of people when Bush did the same thing in Iraq? (And don't go into justifications for the war, I know them already) I do beleive a lot of people protested the war in America.


I don't think that the war in Iraq is a good example, because there was a majority in favor of it even before it started. HOWEVER, the whole concept that disagreement with the majority is a recallable offense is really funny. Isn't that what the whole VETO thing is all about? The right of the president/governor to reject the will of the majority of the people's representatives? Of course, if the veto occurs in the face of an overwhelming majority, it can be overridden, but unless the recall requires 2/3 majority to pass, it is not the same thing.

To recall a standing leader because s/he did not support a measure despite popular support is to reject the checks and balance system of our government.

[arcticpenguin]

I think California is an example of why pure democracy does not work on a large scale, and that they should make it more difficult (but not impossible) to get measures like this and the various propositions on the ballot. It has become a joke, and not a very funny one.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Gem

First of all, was any survey done that clearly stated that the majority truly wanted Prop 187 to pass?

Gem

And the point of this survey would be?

Davis has a 28% approval rating, however we still have to go through the legal process the flush him out. Just as prop 187 was passed legally.

[Gem]

And the point of this survey would be?

Davis has a 28% approval rating, however we still have to go through the legal process the flush him out. Just as prop 187 was passed legally.

The point would be if the "majority" truly wanted prop 187. I think Bush has an 80% war on iraq approval, but a lower, maybe 70% approval rating. The president and a single issue are different, so is governor and prop 187.

Gem

[corplinx]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I think California is an example of why pure democracy does not work on a large scale

Replace "pure democracy" with "mob rule" and its self-explanatory why its a bad idea.

[Khalid01]

I, and others have stated that while Davis isn't great, the Republicans made a horrible mistake by trying to install Simon. Simon is a horrible candidate, a Reagan Republican with little history in California, it was evident he would only be a puppet. I can't really blame the Republican party for doing what they did, since it was in fact only what they wanted, and not the majority of California demanded. Riardon would have been such a better candidate, being much more moderate than Simon, and having had governing experience, here in California. The Republicans risked a dark horse, and failed.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Gem


The point would be if the "majority" truly wanted prop 187. I think Bush has an 80% war on iraq approval, but a lower, maybe 70% approval rating. The president and a single issue are different, so is governor and prop 187.

Gem

The Davis recall, is not only about 187, it is also not a popularity contest.

It does not matter if 187 was supported by the majority only that it was passed as law.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Khalid01
I, and others have stated that while Davis isn't great, the Republicans made a horrible mistake by trying to install Simon. Simon is a horrible candidate, a Reagan Republican with little history in California, it was evident he would only be a puppet. I can't really blame the Republican party for doing what they did, since it was in fact only what they wanted, and not the majority of California demanded. Riardon would have been such a better candidate, being much more moderate than Simon, and having had governing experience, here in California. The Republicans risked a dark horse, and failed.

Actually Davis ran negative adds agents Reardon<SP> to assure Simon got the republican nomination. Davis knew that he could beat Simon, so he help him get the nomination.

[Genghis Pwn]

CA Republicans were SO incredibly stupid trying to run Simon. Only Riordan had a chance. You can't be a hardcore conservative (pro life and all that crap) and win in CA anymore.

[Silicon]

I'm a lifelong demmycrat, and I actually wanted Riordan. Just thought he was the better candidate than Davis, and not an ideologue beholdent to the woo-woo religious right.

Prop 187 was unconstitutional in that it deprived american citizens (everyone born in the US is an american citizen, after all) of their right to education. It violated the equal protection clause, and the due process clause, and probably a few others. Letting some kids go to school and keeping others out, by virtue of who their parents are, or what laws their parents have broken, is probably the worst idea since Jim Crow.

Prop 187 was an anti-latino bill couched in an anti-illegal-immigration argument. It was popular among registered voters. After it passed, the demographic of registered voters changed GREATLY in the state, and the Demmycrats had a TON more Latinos in their ranks. Nine-term orange county republican woo-woo Bob Dornan found himself being shown the door by first-time candidate democrat Loretta Sanchez and a new constituency of latino voters.

187 would have denied american-born children health care and education. That's just wrong.

I for one was glad to not have bands of unimmunized tuburculosis-spreading kids roaming the streets because no school could admit them.

Riordan, a staunch Republican, rightly condemned the measure, which passed, but was found to violate the California constitution. Riordan is a stand-up guy, and I'd vote to remove Davis only if it was guaranteed that Riordan would be elected.

Yeah, Davis ran attack ads against Riordan during the Republican primary. He was sniping the harder candidate to beat, and Simon was chosen by the Republican voters, and handily beaten by Davis in the General Election. Not sure why Republicans fell for it, but they did. Dumb.

PTW, our old Republican Governor, Pete Wilson was a strong supporter of 187. It pretty much ended his chances of a Presidential bid, as pulling children out of schools is the very antithisis of the current "Compassionate Conservatism" figleaf.

[swellman]

I confess it's the chess game of the recall that facinates me.

According to the CNN article, recalls of the Gov. in CA are 0 for 31 over the years. And it claims that 900,000 signatures are currently required to get the recall on the ballot. A lot of signatures, but nowdays such things are merely a matter of money if the public sentiment is right. And there seems to be no shortage of money and voter frustration with which to fuel the petitioning.

So if the recall gets on the ballot, the Governor is all done, even if he survives the vote.

In the case where Davis loses, who replaces him? Feinstein seems the Dems natural choice, and the Republicans might even go with Arnold. (I can see the slogans: Remember lower taxes? They'll be back.)

Whoever wins basically blames Davis, weathers the storm and runs as an "incumbent".

[corplinx]

What was so bad about Simon? He was sharp businessman. So what if he was prolife? He was running for governor, not chief justice. Everyone assumes when a pro-life conservative runs for office that they will be a sock puppet of Jerry Falwell or something.

The only thing I had against him was he looked like a jackass after showing that photo of davis that turned out not to be as represented.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Silicon
I'm a lifelong demmycrat, and I actually wanted Riordan. Just thought he was the better candidate than Davis, and not an ideologue beholdent to the woo-woo religious right.

Prop 187 was unconstitutional in that it deprived american citizens (everyone born in the US is an american citizen, after all) of their right to education. It violated the equal protection clause, and the due process clause, and probably a few others. Letting some kids go to school and keeping others out, by virtue of who their parents are, or what laws their parents have broken, is probably the worst idea since Jim Crow.

Prop 187 was an anti-latino bill couched in an anti-illegal-immigration argument. It was popular among registered voters. After it passed, the demographic of registered voters changed GREATLY in the state, and the Demmycrats had a TON more Latinos in their ranks. Nine-term orange county republican woo-woo Bob Dornan found himself being shown the door by first-time candidate democrat Loretta Sanchez and a new constituency of latino voters.

187 would have denied american-born children health care and education. That's just wrong.

I for one was glad to not have bands of unimmunized tuburculosis-spreading kids roaming the streets because no school could admit them.

Riordan, a staunch Republican, rightly condemned the measure, which passed, but was found to violate the California constitution. Riordan is a stand-up guy, and I'd vote to remove Davis only if it was guaranteed that Riordan would be elected.

Yeah, Davis ran attack ads against Riordan during the Republican primary. He was sniping the harder candidate to beat, and Simon was chosen by the Republican voters, and handily beaten by Davis in the General Election. Not sure why Republicans fell for it, but they did. Dumb.

PTW, our old Republican Governor, Pete Wilson was a strong supporter of 187. It pretty much ended his chances of a Presidential bid, as pulling children out of schools is the very antithisis of the current "Compassionate Conservatism" figleaf.

But all of those half-truths you listed as 'reasons' why Prop 187 wouldn't have worked are spin.

Let's look at some facts together.

The first major fact that the United States has to deal with collectively as a people if we want our country to survive is that if someone comes into this country and pops a kid out, the kid is not an American citizen. It is leftist spin and subversion of the immigration policy of this country to think that anchoring illegal immigrants via pregnancy in this country is lawful activity in reality. It is not and politicians need to wake up and figure that out.

The second major problem is that if people swim, run, jump, fly or sail through the atmosphere from another planet to the United States, we are a country with laws and immigration rules and processes. We get to select and choose who we want and who we do not want coming into this country. Those who want to come into this country can apply for citizenship like everyone else did in history.

As for kids getting "pulled out of school", pull them out right now. If they are not American citizens, they have no business being in our schools.

God selects where a human is born, not me, not you nor anyone else. Countries have borders to protect the sovereign integrity of the nation-state.

When you let anyone in the world come into this country (and everyone wants to, why is that?), you no longer have a country. You have a Balkanized, destabilized mess on your hands and a defunct economy (gosh, what is happening in the US right now?). The problem is that Americans are too generous. We have handed these people our quality of life and have gotten nothing in return for it. Take a ride down the highway sometime or look at all the urban sprawl. Is that the legacy we are leaving for our kids--real American citizens? We will be leaving a country to our children that is rife with crime, unemployment, misery, a non-existent quality of life, low wages, pollution, over-development and a Balkanized ethnic tension that could dangerously destabilize the nation-state.

Smart immigration policy demands that groups allowed into the country be absorbed into the affairs of the nation. Immigrants are let inside the country in spurts so that they can adapt to the country and integrate. They integrate to us, we do not integrate to them. We do not become what they left--the system they left. No, that is not something Americans should be required to do and that is a perversion.

If immigrants are so desperate to come over here, the countries they are coming from need to relinquish national sovereignty to the United States. Something is forcing these people to come to us. We should just absorb the entire country these people come from and keep them there inside of it rather than subjecting our children to the future-terror we are creating inside America.

When you let tens of millions of immigrants into this country and demand nothing from them you will get revolutionary activity.

The recall of Grey Davis is revolutionary activity. It always starts with appeals to the "system" and ends with explosions and gunfire and death when the "system" can't snap back into what it once was. The tens of million of immigrants we are letting into this country aren't interested in "America". They are doing what they want to do outside the rules and laws of this country in a variety of ways. Some of them are:

1) Forming employment coalitions that are underground and non-taxed so they do not pay taxes to the states they live in nor to the federal government.

2) Voting for the political party in each state and at the federal level to any party that lets them get away with it.

3) Siphoning off tax-payer funds in services (especially schools, hospitals and the corrections system) at such levels that it costs tax-paying Americans additional $billions to keep these people per state. At the same time these people are not contributing money back into the system. How do you think California wound up with a $38 billion dollar budget deficit? Were "Americans" spending that money? No way. That is what it cost last decade to house, feed, nurture, hospitalize and incarcerate illegal aliens in just California alone, plus the costs to energy, insurance and property maintenance (roads, beaches, etc etc etc).

4) Failing to adapt to the US system. Why adapt when there is an invasion? You just take what you want in an invasion. No one is stopping it, either.

That is why there is a recall against Grey Davis--not just because people dislike the guy. This isn't a "popularity" contest. People could care less about Davis' popularity. It is the survival of the nation-state and a diplomatic attempt to halt the potential for armed revolution in the United States that has these citizens forming referendums.

If California ignores this referendum, things could get much, much more dangerous for all Americans in the American southwest. I don't think Balkanization of the United States is a healthy thing and reflecting back on what happened in Yugoslavia, nothing but evil occurred there.

JK

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The first major fact that the United States has to deal with collectively as a people if we want our country to survive is that if someone comes into this country and pops a kid out, the kid is not an American citizen.



Then amend the U.S. Constitution.

It's the fourteenth amendment. Good luck.



Section 1. 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.



God Bless America.

[Gem]

JK, can you actually show me that illegal immigrants can vote? I thought you had to be a US citizen to vote, or can anybody move illegally to the US and vote democrat?

Gem

Editted to add: Why don't you prove all the above statements, too, btw.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Silicon


Then amend the U.S. Constitution.

It's the fourteenth amendment. Good luck.




God Bless America.

What it means is all persons born of "naturalized" (given permission via immigration law and policy at the federal level) or current citizens is an American citizen, not children of illegal immigrants. That is the specific perversion of the US Constitution I was referring to. It is laughable to think that the Amendment was written to protect illegal immigrants so they could anchor themselves in this country by popping kids out.

Illegal aliens and their offspring are not US citizens and if it takes federal laws to make that clear they need to be legislated immediately.

I recognize the dumbing down of many Americans and their inability to understand US history or law or both, so the sooner we can get politicians to clarify the Amendment with clearer legislation, the sooner we can protect our country together.

JK

[Gem]

All persons born

Read that again.

All
PersonS
BORN

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.
born or naturalized. OR
all persons born of "naturalized"

Big difference.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Read that again.

All
PersonS
BORN


born or naturalized. OR


Big difference.

Gem

Gem, I know you aren't buying the perversion of that Amendment by the leftist crowd.

"Born" means anyone born in the United States by citizens of the United States. What that means is that the newborn meets the citizenship test of the country if both parents are already citizens.

Naturalized are people given permission to become citizens via immigration controls. Illegal alien invaders that cross into the US and pop a kid out at the local Sunoco gas station across the border is not what the Amendment covers.

JK

[Gem]

"Born" means anyone born in the United States by citizens of the United States. What that means is that the newborn meets the citizenship test of the country if both parents are already citizens.

Yeah, that could be an interpretation. But literaly it means ALL personS born. That's why we have a supreme court to decide that sort of technicality.

Illegal alien invaders that cross into the US and pop a kid out at the local Sunoco gas station across the border is not what the Amendment covers.

lol, I doubt Thomas Jerfferon or George Washington would think that this sort of thing happen. 1776 isn't really that long ago, relativly, but they didn't even think of cars or gas stations back then.

And yes, I'm buying it. Unless you can find that ammendment in the constitution and show that it's "born AND naturalized," or something better.

However, I do beleive that immigration policies in the US should reflect modern times, and it is arguable that illegal immigrants can come in and diliver a US citizen in El Paso is a motif to ammend that part of the constitution.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Yeah, that could be an interpretation. But literaly it means ALL personS born. That's why we have a supreme court to decide that sort of technicality.



lol, I doubt Thomas Jerfferon or George Washington would think that this sort of thing happen. 1776 isn't really that long ago, relativly, but they didn't even think of cars or gas stations back then.

And yes, I'm buying it. Unless you can find that ammendment in the constitution and show that it's "born AND naturalized," or something better.

However, I do beleive that immigration policies in the US should reflect modern times, and it is arguable that illegal immigrants can come in and diliver a US citizen in El Paso is a motif to ammend that part of the constitution.

Gem

So a married couple decides to have a family--the wife gets pregnant--and then a week before she is due to pop the baby out she treks across the Arizona desert and pops the baby out in a gas station restroom and now all of them are American citizens?

Come on Gem, that defeats all immigration control vital to the nation-state and the founding fathers would laugh their asses off if anyone dared to interpret that as citizenship.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Mob rule. This is what the founding fathers had in mind with their constitutional checks and balances.

People might hate the current Gov, but lets face it, the dot-bomb is to blame for a lot of Californias problems, and the fact that Californians want to blame anyone but themselves.

This will be interesting to watch. I have never heard of a recall ability for a democracy, and can only see it causing trouble.

[Gem]

So a married couple decides to have a family--the wife gets pregnant--and then a week before she is due to pop the baby out she treks across the Arizona desert and pops the baby out in a gas station restroom and now all of them are American citizens?


According to the constitution, only the child is. I do not know whether the parents become citizens, but I doubt it.


Come on Gem, that defeats all immigration control vital to the nation-state and the founding fathers would laugh their asses off if anyone dared to interpret that as citizenship.

JK

The founding fathers didn't know that the mexicans would want to migrate to california, which belonged to them at the time (or spain, actually, but later it belonged to mexico, anyway).

Immigration at the time came from Europe, and pregnant women who came to the US were usually naturalized. I am ignorant of past immigration history, so I do not want to say much.

In a way, there is a loophole in the constitution that could be easily fixed, if there are enough votes. That's for congress to debate, as well as the president.

And I have to agree with you on this one, it doesn't make any sense that just being born here makes you a US citizen.

Gem

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Gem
First of all, was any survey done that clearly stated that the majority truly wanted Prop 187 to pass?
Gem

You may call them surveys in your state, but here, we call it voting.

Prop 187 was passed as a law by the people of the state of CA. (That's on eof the differences in politics here that's different from other places...we, the people sometimes vote on new laws...then Governors and judges sometimes overturn them :mad: )

Or, at least, those of us that cared enough to vote.

[Gem]

Prop 187 was passed as a law by the people of the state of CA. (That's on eof the differences in politics here that's different from other places...we, the people sometimes vote on new laws...then Governors and judges sometimes overturn them )

Can the 'veto' be overturned? Like in congress, they can overturn a presidential veto if 2/3 of congress votes "yay."

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by kerfer


You may call them surveys in your state, but here, we call it voting.

Prop 187 was passed as a law by the people of the state of CA. (That's on eof the differences in politics here that's different from other places...we, the people sometimes vote on new laws...then Governors and judges sometimes overturn them :mad: )

Or, at least, those of us that cared enough to vote.

Hey Kerfer, do you think illegal immigration has helped or hurt California and what are the reasons for your answer?

JK

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Kerfer, do you think illegal immigration has helped or hurt California and what are the reasons for your answer?

JK

Illegal aliens (the people that are erroneously called 'undocumented immigrants' by the PC media) are a huge problem in SoCal, and illegal immigration hurts California tremendously. I live in...well, let's just say way SoCal (the big city south of LA), and if you were to see firsthand the numbers of people that enter this country via this county every night, you would be appalled. It's in the thousands. Every night.

The people who live on the border are invaded each and every night. Their property and real estate are damaged, stolen, and vandalized. Their animals are sometimes killed.

They are a huge drain on our infrastructure...emergency services, medical services, police, etc. Not to mention our schools and other public facilities.

I have said for years that illegal aliens will not be recognized as a problem until they are a problem in Iowa. Down here is way SoCal, we are out of the way, and it's our problem. They are finally becoming a problem in Iowa, but they've been sucking billions of dollars out of the taxes paid by local residents for years. The dollars that they are costing us are mine. You can talk about illegal aliens all you want, but unless you live in or near a border city, in CA, AR, NM, or TX, you don't really know that of which you speak.

Note: This is not to say anything about the people and their culture (and their yummy food). Or immigration. Immigration is one of the things that makes this country great. But that means that it's done legally, and the immigrant assimilates. (But that's another thread, and I shant digress)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Mob rule. This is what the founding fathers had in mind with their constitutional checks and balances.

People might hate the current Gov, but lets face it, the dot-bomb is to blame for a lot of Californias problems, and the fact that Californians want to blame anyone but themselves.

This will be interesting to watch. I have never heard of a recall ability for a democracy, and can only see it causing trouble.

I think a recall is a valid tool in a republic. However, for people to pretend they didn't know Davis was a schmuck after one term is ludicrous. It seems to me that if people are activist enough to get a recall going that they should have been activist enough to vote in the primaries.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by kerfer


Illegal aliens (the people that are erroneously called 'undocumented immigrants' by the PC media) are a huge problem in SoCal, and illegal immigration hurts California tremendously. I live in...well, let's just say way SoCal (the big city south of LA), and if you were to see firsthand the numbers of people that enter this country via this county every night, you would be appalled. It's in the thousands. Every night.

The people who live on the border are invaded each and every night. Their property and real estate are damaged, stolen, and vandalized. Their animals are sometimes killed.

They are a huge drain on our infrastructure...emergency services, medical services, police, etc. Not to mention our schools and other public facilities.

I have said for years that illegal aliens will not be recognized as a problem until they are a problem in Iowa. Down here is way SoCal, we are out of the way, and it's our problem. They are finally becoming a problem in Iowa, but they've been sucking billions of dollars out of the taxes paid by local residents for years. The dollars that they are costing us are mine. You can talk about illegal aliens all you want, but unless you live in or near a border city, in CA, AR, NM, or TX, you don't really know that of which you speak.

Note: This is not to say anything about the people and their culture (and their yummy food). Or immigration. Immigration is one of the things that makes this country great. But that means that it's done legally, and the immigrant assimilates. (But that's another thread, and I shant digress)

Don't get me wrong--I am all for immigration. Immigration is the strength of this country. Responsible immigration.

Responsible immigration is not opening borders up and letting tens of millions of people overrun the country and destroy it. Responsible immigration is allowing chunks of immigrants into the country at a time, letting them assimilate, then allowing more in. It is not letting tens of millions in to form their own country within our country.

I think that there was a secret agreement between the government of Mexico and the United States to eliminate all border controls and allow Mexico and the United States to slowly become one country. The only problem is the American people weren't informed.

JK

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Gem


Read that again.

All
PersonS
BORN


born or naturalized. OR


Big difference.

Gem

Wait a minute. With all due respect, let's all read the 14th amendment again. All of it.


Section 1. 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.



You are forgetting a very important clause in your argument above. It doesn't say all persons born, it says all persons born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, all persons borns here, whose parents are under the authority of the United States. People who are here illegally are necessarily not under the authority of the United States. Therefore, this grant of citizenship seems not to apply to thier children.

But it does to someone who is here on vacation, or a work visa, or probably any other legal means that you'd care to mention.

So if a legitimate migrant worker (working the harvest crews, for example) were here on a visa, and his wife had a son while here, under the authority of the United States, then, according to how I read the 14th amendment, that little ankle biter is eligible for citizenship.

I'm going out a bit on a limb here (because I don't know off hand when the 14th amendment was ratified, and I'm too lazy to look it up), but the early residents of this country had a problem before this amendment was added. It seems as though their children were not legal citizens of the union that they had fought so hard to create, and soon they would have a generation of people without a country. So they wrote this amendment. And like the rest, it is written very carefully, not to be picked at, and interpretted without its full context.

Although, reading the whole thing, what does that mean for the slaves at the time? Doesn't this amendment make them citizens? With rights and everything?

Hmm....

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx


I think a recall is a valid tool in a republic. However, for people to pretend they didn't know Davis was a schmuck after one term is ludicrous. It seems to me that if people are activist enough to get a recall going that they should have been activist enough to vote in the primaries.

When you have tens of millions of illegal aliens voting for Grey Davis lol, how on Earth can you possibly get that many real American citizens to fight against that? Come on Corp, the whole California voting system is suspect.

JK

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Gem


Can the 'veto' be overturned? Like in congress, they can overturn a presidential veto if 2/3 of congress votes "yay."

Gem

Hmm...

That's a good question, and I honestly don't know.

But I think, perhaps that that is part of JK's argument... ;) He is asserting, is he not, that that is part of what the recall is about, is overturning the veto, as you say? :cool:


I don't think that's what it's about, and I haven't signed the petition yet, because I'm not sure what good it does to remove this idiot, other than we don't have this idiot running the state anymore.:mad: I dunno, maybe that's reason enough, in and of itself.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by kerfer


Wait a minute. With all due respect, let's all read the 14th amendment again. All of it.



You are forgetting a very important clause in your argument above. It doesn't say all persons born, it says all persons born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, all persons borns here, whose parents are under the authority of the United States. People who are here illegally are necessarily not under the authority of the United States. Therefore, this grant of citizenship seems not to apply to thier children.

But it does to someone who is here on vacation, or a work visa, or probably any other legal means that you'd care to mention.

So if a legitimate migrant worker (working the harvest crews, for example) were here on a visa, and his wife had a son while here, under the authority of the United States, then, according to how I read the 14th amendment, that little ankle biter is eligible for citizenship.

I'm going out a bit on a limb here (because I don't know off hand when the 14th amendment was ratified, and I'm too lazy to look it up), but the early residents of this country had a problem before this amendment was added. It seems as though their children were not legal citizens of the union that they had fought so hard to create, and soon they would have a generation of people without a country. So they wrote this amendment. And like the rest, it is written very carefully, not to be picked at, and interpretted without its full context.

Although, reading the whole thing, what does that mean for the slaves at the time? Doesn't this amendment make them citizens? With rights and everything?

Hmm....

That is where the XIV Amendment came from--the end of the American Civil War. It had to deal with the slavery/citizenship question. All slaves that were residing in the United States and those born here to families that lived here for generations were given citizenship.

That Amendment was not written so that everyone on the planet who could fly, swim, jump, crawl, sail, scuba, etc and came to America with a baby in the middle could instantly become American citizens.

It is simply unbelievable that if I were to promise 10 million illegal aliens citizenship if they will just vote for me when they enter the country illegally I could be governor of California. That can't be legal.

JK

[Gem]

You are forgetting a very important clause in your argument above. It doesn't say all persons born, it says all persons born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, all persons borns here, whose parents are under the authority of the United States. People who are here illegally are necessarily not under the authority of the United States. Therefore, this grant of citizenship seems not to apply to thier children.

But it does to someone who is here on vacation, or a work visa, or probably any other legal means that you'd care to mention.

So if a legitimate migrant worker (working the harvest crews, for example) were here on a visa, and his wife had a son while here, under the authority of the United States, then, according to how I read the 14th amendment, that little ankle biter is eligible for citizenship.

I'm going out a bit on a limb here (because I don't know off hand when the 14th amendment was ratified, and I'm too lazy to look it up), but the early residents of this country had a problem before this amendment was added. It seems as though their children were not legal citizens of the union that they had fought so hard to create, and soon they would have a generation of people without a country. So they wrote this amendment. And like the rest, it is written very carefully, not to be picked at, and interpretted without its full context.

Although, reading the whole thing, what does that mean for the slaves at the time? Doesn't this amendment make them citizens? With rights and everything?


You're right. However, it might depend on how you interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Though I think you're right.

Gem

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is where the XIV Amendment came from--the end of the American Civil War. It had to deal with the slavery/citizenship question. All slaves that were residing in the United States and those born here to families that lived here for generations were given citizenship.

Thank you.

I told you I was being too lazy to look it up. I'll take your word on it.


That Amendment was not written so that everyone on the planet who could fly, swim, jump, crawl, sail, scuba, etc and came to America with a baby in the middle could instantly become American citizens.

Yup. I agree.

Except you forgot hang-glide, and hitch-hike. ;)


It is simply unbelievable that if I were to promise 10 million illegal aliens citizenship if they will just vote for me when they enter the country illegally I could be governor of California. That can't be legal.

JK

Nope. That certainly can't be what was intended.

I think we can all agree that it is being interpretted incorrectly.

If so, then one can only wonder why it is interpretted as it is...now before all the cynics (who are right) say 'to get votes', what could the possible reasoning for the current interpretation be?:confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


You're right. However, it might depend on how you interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Though I think you're right.

Gem

You know, there are positives to all those illegal aliens from Mexico coming into the country.

The first positive is that they are Christians for the most part so that will strengthen the country and provide a barrier against Islam. They are also pro-family so that is a plus. They join the army a lot so that helps and they are good soldiers.

They also like America so that is helpful. If they all become Conservative Republicans, that would be a dream come true. :D

Hey, come to think about it, illegal immigration from all points south may be a good thing after all. ;)

JK

[peptoabysmal]

Yup, Gov. Davis has declared Jihad on California.

I live in the state and since Gray Davis has been governor the educational system in California is in ruins and so is the state budget.

It has very little to do with the dot com failures. California is a too big of a state with too much industry for that to make much of an impact.

Davis' handling of the energy crisis (http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6054077p-7010489c.html) alone cost the state billions.

Davis has beenselling the state out from under us (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/3765542.htm) for years.

Davis' solution to the problem? Do what any good Democrat would do and raise taxes.

http://www.recallgraydavis.com/

[corplinx]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Yup, Gov. Davis has declared Jihad on California.


It has very little to do with the dot com failures. California is a too big of a state with too much industry for that to make much of an impact.


High tech drove the stock market and the economy udring the late nineties. As prosperity went up, so did tax revenues. California like many other states spent all of the new revenue. I consider bad financial planning a big reason many states are feeling the crunch today. California however is leagues worse. So, I think the dot-bust and tech bubble burst are a good part of it but obviously there is more to it.