And the whole thing could be handled as I outlined earlier - instead of putting extra investigatory burdens on already overtaxed local police forces, instead have ICE themselves more closely audit employers, and courts punish employment offenders there more severely.
From the LA times:
Self-deporting, you mean. And if they resort to crime, their status as illegal aliens becomes discovered when they are arrested (because even Obama-era policies verify legal status in this situation), and they are deported.
That's sort of what I was getting at a couple pages ago, yes. The laws cause more problems then they supposedly fix. Besides, the "self deportation" line sounds cute but from all evidence I'm seeing online it's not something which works. I know for certain we've gone around the block on this one.
What's an example of self deportation by souring the milk not working? I was not aware we had tried it before. What is the evidence you are seeing online?[DOUBLEPOST=1487621612,1487621563][/DOUBLEPOST]
Which is kind of a big slap in the face to all the immigrants who did their due diligence and came the right (legal) way.
And it also doesn't work that way anyhow. I've seen plenty of people with no criminal record, lived here most their lives, have families, built businesses that employ U.S. citizens, paid taxes, be deported because their kids aren't sick enough, whereas I've seen murderers be given residence and be applicable for citizenship based on technicalities.
Please expand on the bolded words, and provide some context/sources beyond "totes magotes anonyFUD". For now, I'm left guessing that "because their kids aren't sick enough" is code for "were convicted or plead guilty/no-contest to a deportable offense in a court of law".
I appreciate the links, but it doesn't address my "core" question very well, so I will re-focus and re-state.
Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime. You don't need a deportable offense beyond that. What you need is a reason for us to let you stay. If, for example, your U.S. citizen kid has cancer, there's a good chance you'll be allowed to stay.
Ah, I misinterpreted your scenario as involving legal immigrants. Carry on.
What proof is required for registering on Election Day, and what happens in other places if you're not on the list and show up? I'm curious now. This is so foreign to me (literally, I'm in Canada), as I've always been able to just "show up" and vote. 95% of the time I've had a voter card (they mail them out to where you paid your taxes from) but it's happened that I didn't, so I'm wondering.
Proof varies by state. In Nebraska, you need a photo ID (driver's license or state ID) and a recent official document with your name and address on it (like a utility bill) to show proof of residence to register to vote.
The way I'm reading that article is that if somebody has a drivers license in Kansas, they can register to vote without needing proof of citizenship, and then go vote, again without any proof. How did they even come up with their "only 18 people have been caught fraudulently registering" part? Did they confess or something? How else would it have been detected?
I wonder how fed prosecutors and fed courts will deal with the glut of deportation proceedings that are this will cause. I know Trump promised ICE budget/manpower increases, but haven't heard/seen corresponding talks on the judicial side.
Every state uses different voting methods (electronic/punch cards/paper ballots/etc) and so the auditing methods to discover fraudulent votes for each state are all different, too.
(From Appeals Court Rules that Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Right to Assault Weapons, which I'm using for the quote but is otherwise way too editorialized to link)
I'm not sure Scalia would fall where you paint him. He liked deferring to states, and the reasoning used in the DC v. Heller decision would have him upholding this law, IMO.
I'm pretty sure Scalia was one of the staunchest of constitutionalists, and would have had a scathing but entertaining write-up of why Maryland is being pants-on-head retarded.
In hell where he belongs.
Yes, he was a constitutionalist. As in, he liked deferring to the states when possible (not the biggest fan of 14th amendment applications, if you look up his interviews/writings), and opposed stuff like the negative commerce clause.
The positive reference to U.S. v. Miller (essentially agreeing that not all weapon types are covered by 2Am), the importance of home defense and the "lawful purpose of self-defense" ... for me point to there being no reason to think this decision could be repeated for ARs. Pretty much the same thing happens in the McDonald v. Chicago decision (also joined by Scalia), restricting classes of firearms is not necessarily a constitutional issue.
I assume you mean assault weapon, since assault rifles are quite well defined. I agree with you that I think Scalia would come down against this, the court's ruling is based on the argument that some of the most commonly used civilian rifles fall under the category of "unusual and dangerous weapons" because of features that have little to nothing to do with killing power (pistol grips, folding stocks, ect).
I think the definition, for better or worse, is pretty cut and dry (link). List of weapons, list of qualifying characteristics, second list of weapons. I don't think Scalia would consider it to be overbroad, but unless we get a Speak With Dead or find a relevant interview...
That's what McDonald v. Chicago addresses.
