How is Trump going to handle the immigration issue come election time?
Comments
-
Slavery goes against the Declaration of Independence, 'all men are created equal.' There is no constitutional right to own slaves or have abortions, regardless of what decisions are rendered by black robed activist judges in DC.creepycoug said:
They should up to the point of federal constitutional limits. As in, we decided they? weren't free to enslave people even if they felt like doing it.oregonblitzkrieg said:The state of Alabama (as well as every other state) should have the right to decide its own trajectory on social issues, not 9 un-elected, black robed individuals in DC. If you live in Alabama and want to get an abortion, I'm sure there are plenty of back alleys, or travel to another state that allows it, like Virginia, a state with a democrat governor that supports killing babies post birth. Otherwise, use a condom, take the pill, or just don't have sex if you don't want babies. Don't like it, you're free to move.
If you mean that we should disregard the constitution and the people charged with applying it, and disband the union, then that should be another thread. -
The black robes say you do ... for now.
I think you'd find it hard to live with the constitution if there weren't some arbiter around to apply it.
But if you're against the third branch of government, and that supportive of state rights, why not break it all up and let 50 independent states do what they will? They'll be free to engage in commerce with the other states, forge agreements with some and not others, enact regional rules based on regional consensus, etc.
Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I know where I'd live. -
The states can have more rights without breaking up the union. How can 50 independent nation states have a common immigration or defense policy? DC is a hot mess that will never be fixed, and there a quite a few states that have nothing at all in common with the others. One size doesn't fit all. The family of states is no longer functioning as a cohesive unit and it's time for a divorce....from DC control.creepycoug said:The black robes say you do ... for now.
I think you'd find it hard to live with the constitution if there weren't some arbiter around to apply it.
But if you're against the third branch of government, and that supportive of state rights, why not break it all up and let 50 independent states do what they will? They'll be free to engage in commerce with the other states, forge agreements with some and not others, enact regional rules based on regional consensus, etc.
Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I know where I'd live.
-
@CirrhosisDawgcreepycoug said:
They should up to the point of federal constitutional limits. As in, we decided they? weren't free to enslave people even if they felt like doing it.oregonblitzkrieg said:The state of Alabama (as well as every other state) should have the right to decide its own trajectory on social issues, not 9 un-elected, black robed individuals in DC. If you live in Alabama and want to get an abortion, I'm sure there are plenty of back alleys, or travel to another state that allows it, like Virginia, a state with a democrat governor that supports killing babies post birth. Otherwise, use a condom, take the pill, or just don't have sex if you don't want babies. Don't like it, you're free to move.
If you mean that we should disregard the constitution and the people charged with applying it, and disband the union, then that should be another thread. -
I agree with creepy.RaceBannon said:
@CirrhosisDawgcreepycoug said:
They should up to the point of federal constitutional limits. As in, we decided they? weren't free to enslave people even if they felt like doing it.oregonblitzkrieg said:The state of Alabama (as well as every other state) should have the right to decide its own trajectory on social issues, not 9 un-elected, black robed individuals in DC. If you live in Alabama and want to get an abortion, I'm sure there are plenty of back alleys, or travel to another state that allows it, like Virginia, a state with a democrat governor that supports killing babies post birth. Otherwise, use a condom, take the pill, or just don't have sex if you don't want babies. Don't like it, you're free to move.
If you mean that we should disregard the constitution and the people charged with applying it, and disband the union, then that should be another thread.
If you are whining again about California sanctuary state laws, they have been approved by district and appeal courts (with noted funding repercussions based on administration funding policies). Trumptards need to head to the border and the jails on their own dime if they want to enforce the unenforceable white nationalist immigration laws. You’ll get no help from CA taxpayers or law enforcement. It’s called federalism. It’s all legal.
I support the original principles of the US constitution. If this is not workable, then that’s the subject of another thread as creepy said. -
They won't need a common anything unless they want one. If, say, the states in the SE want to agree to various regional agreements and cost shares, then they can do that. Immigration could be another. Bamers, say, could be very stingy with letting immigrants in for any reason, while California would be free to California. If any state didn't like the regional agreements, they could assert their bargaining power, if they have it, or LEAVE if they don't like it.oregonblitzkrieg said:
The states can have more rights without breaking up the union. How can 50 independent nation states have a common immigration or defense policy? DC is a hot mess that will never be fixed, and there a quite a few states that have nothing at all in common with the others. One size doesn't fit all. The family of states is no longer functioning as a cohesive unit and it's time for a divorce....from DC control.creepycoug said:The black robes say you do ... for now.
I think you'd find it hard to live with the constitution if there weren't some arbiter around to apply it.
But if you're against the third branch of government, and that supportive of state rights, why not break it all up and let 50 independent states do what they will? They'll be free to engage in commerce with the other states, forge agreements with some and not others, enact regional rules based on regional consensus, etc.
Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I know where I'd live.
Your other comments about the family of states seems to be sympathetic to the idea of break-up.
About the only thing I could see that would suffer is the military. What we're able to do as a collective in that area will always, I assume, dwarf what a state or regional military force can do.
I don't entirely disagree with you. There are regions of the US that have next to nothing in common with other regions of the US. And there are cultural refugees in all of these regions. Break it up and people can flow to the region in which they feel they most belong.
There are worse ideas. -
Would need a neutral zone on the borders so states like California aren't free to have their open borders policies affect every other state. That, or make an agreement with Mexico and allow it to annex California. California can then decide if it would prefer to be annexed by Mexico and become part of that country, or remain one of the nation states in the former United States.
-
California is a sovereign state. Surprised you didn’t know that.oregonblitzkrieg said:Would need a neutral zone on the borders so states like California aren't free to have their open borders policies affect every other state. That, or make an agreement with Mexico and allow it to annex California. California can then decide if it would prefer to be annexed by Mexico and become part of that country, or remain one of the nation states in the former United States.
-
California already has immigration policies in place to make it a Mexican dominated state, where Mexicans are set to become the majority. Allowing Mexico to annex it would only be a natural progression of events. But Mexico will have to pay a heavy price in that event. Call it a 'sale' if you want, where the proceeds of the sale would be divided among the other 49 states. Then California can truly remove the doors to its southern border as it seems hellbent on doing, without worrying about what the rest of us think about it.
-
Seems fair. Individuals seeking to cross state borders would need whatever paper work the state into which you seek entry requires.oregonblitzkrieg said:Would need a neutral zone on the borders so states like California aren't free to have their open borders policies affect every other state. That, or make an agreement with Mexico and allow it to annex California. California can then decide if it would prefer to be annexed by Mexico and become part of that country, or remain one of the nation states in the former United States.
There will inevitably be complications, but the current state of affairs is not without its own complications. If we're going to just accept that we're more tribal than we thought we were, smaller regions of people who have a shared fundamental outlook on things might be the way to go.
