Defensive Arts
Simply Triggers
Oregon Rifleworks
DSG Arms
Southwest Firearms
HighLine Firearms
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Low Price Guns
Sporting Systems
J&B Firearm Sales
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Gun Deals
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Messages
158
Reactions
5
What's next, shall we open up our borders and let anyone in who "swears to be a citizen"? Go Feds!

You know, that's exactly what we had with Canada and Mexico before the republicans killed it to keep us scared of safe from terrorists. All you had to show was a driver's license, just like the polls in Arizona require.

Worried about terrorists at the polls? Where else in your life would you like the government require you to provide your papers? How about grocery stores? Then only citizens could buy food. How about bars? Restaurants? Getting onto a bus?
 
Messages
1,245
Reactions
425
You know, that's exactly what we had with Canada and Mexico before the republicans killed it to keep us scared of safe from terrorists. All you had to show was a driver's license, just like the polls in Arizona require.

Worried about terrorists at the polls? Where else in your life would you like the government require you to provide your papers? How about grocery stores? Then only citizens could buy food. How about bars? Restaurants? Getting onto a bus?

Except you do not have to be a US citizen to ride a bus, buy food and do your banking. You ARE required to be a citizen to vote. I find nothing wrong in proving your citizenship to vote.


I am not worried about terrorists at the polls.
 
Messages
6,597
Reactions
19,375
You know, that's exactly what we had with Canada and Mexico before the republicans killed it to keep us scared of safe from terrorists. All you had to show was a driver's license, just like the polls in Arizona require.

Worried about terrorists at the polls? Where else in your life would you like the government require you to provide your papers? How about grocery stores? Then only citizens could buy food. How about bars? Restaurants? Getting onto a bus?
Taking things a little far aren't you C&H? :s0131: :s0131: :s0131:
Given that Arizona has tried to convince the feds that there is a greater problem with illegals in their state, this issue is waaayy more relevant in AZ than in most states. SB1070, while not fully implemented due to fed lawsuit, was legally passed by their legislature and signed by their Governor.
And before you blather on about whether it's an issue, remember that Janet Napolitano, our illustrious queen of homeland security, spent much of her time as Governor there, hollering for GWB to help stop the insanity of illegal immigration in AZ. This isn't new to Arizonans or their legal system.
If AZ is to continue their state sovereignty it is imperative that the citizens be accurately represented at the polls.
It would be far too easy to dilute the results if the people that SB1070 was written to control, have the ability to vote out the legislators that passed it, and Governor that signed it.

Things aren't as perfect everywhere as they are in the progressive utopia that is PDX you know. :p
 
Messages
158
Reactions
5
Taking things a little far aren't you C&H? :s0131: :s0131: :s0131:

Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not required to show proof of citizenship when I vote. I provided proof when I received my driver's license at 16. When I was old enough to vote, I didn't recall showing proof of citizenship, I just filled out a card at the DMV. Sure, a non-citizen can get a driver's license, but it declares that they're NOT a citizen, and I don't think they could fill out a card at the DMV to vote. If they could, then the whole system needs to be reworked.

In Oregon, we have vote by mail - which is superior to polling station visits in most ways (but much more susceptible to vote purchasing and household influence). Requiring proof of citizenship at a polling place sounds like a good thing except that in addition to blocking some voting by those without citizenship, it also negatively affects those who aren't as informed or prepared and the poor (often one in the same - a brutal one-two punch). At a polling place, no more than a driver's license, or DMV ID card should be required - other docs (passport, social security card, birth certificate, etc. ) could be accepted in lieu, but not required. And if your states driver's license can't indicate citizenship status - fix that, don;t add BS laws that disenfranchise the poor or "urban".

On a sidenote - if people really wanted to solve the immigration crisis, forget about the the immigrants. In their position I'd probably do the same thing. Slap a non-negotiable 5K fine per violation on any employer caught hiring illegal immigrants without valid papers. Add a multiplier of jailtime for owners/principals/executives for repeat offenses. Of course, big agribusiness, chain restaurants and Wal*Mart would fight this tooth and nail, but it would make a big difference. And if it doesn't, fire the people responsible for oversight and find honest people. Of course, this means I couldn't afford most fruit and vegetables from the US, so it does introduce other issues.
 
Messages
1,245
Reactions
425
more information here.----- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"According to the most current count, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents, with 59%. Until 2003, this percentage was much higher; a political stalemate over judicial nominations subsequently kept several vacancies on the court for several years. Nevertheless, such a percentage is not extreme in relation to the other Circuits. 82% of the active judges on the Eighth Circuit were appointed by Republicans and eight Circuits have partisan appointment ratios that are more skewed than the Ninth's.

Critics try to explain the court's perceived liberal bias by reference to its relatively high proportion of Democratic appointees. Such critics often point to 2002's Newdow v. U.S. Congress, in which the court declared that a public school district in Elk Grove, California, could not lead students in recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (as then constituted); the pledge's inclusion of the words "under God," the court held, violated the Establishment Clause. The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who felt that the daily recitation of the Pledge in his daughter's school violated her First Amendment right to be free from government establishment of religion. In a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel held for Newdow, stating that "[t]he text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God." The majority opinion was written by Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed to the court by Richard Nixon, a Republican."
 
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Project Appleseed
DSG Arms
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Cerberus Training Group
Southwest Firearms Forum
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Sporting Systems
NW Custom Firearms

Upcoming Events

Rimfire Challenge May 8th @ DRRC
Eagle Creek , OR
22 Rimfire Challenge
Redmond , OR
Rimfire Challenge July 31st @ DRRC
Eagle Creek , OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top Bottom