Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, States hold the rights to Residency, only legal immigrants and citizens can be residents.
Not entirely true, at least not in the literal sense. Anyone can live in a residence, and having "proof of residency" (like a PG&E bill) makes you a resident - at least in the eyes of a public library. Again, we don't dig deep enough into people's private lives to know their immigration status.
Btw, foreign visitors have always been allowed to obtain restricted cards in some libraries, basically restricting them to one or two checkouts at a time... we used to do that frequently in my old library, since there were a large number of visitors (tourists, college students, temporary workers, etc) who'd need internet access & materials. So if an illegal immigrant really wanted a library card, and didn't have proof of US residence, they could always just use a foreign passport/ID to get one. Why would they bother lying, when we don't ask or care?
Thank goodness our philandering Mayor is on his way out, but this is too reprehensible to believe; it's bad enough that the Democrats have ruined this state to keep the prison guards and other civil service workers raking in the dough, having turned our once upon a time best public schools in the nation into the worst, not to mention demolishing the national housing market in the name of 'fairness'.
Um... I'm a public librarian (in California, no less), and we don't check a patron's immigration status before issuing library cards.
All you need in most libraries in SOME form of identification, and proof that you live where you claim. So how is this specifically "enabling illegal immigrants?" Do you propose we start asking for green cards before giving them a library card, or what? That being said, I guess it's up to the banks etc whether to accept them as "multi-use" IDs. Surely this isn't a library decision!
Did you even read the original post?
Quote:
Los Angeles officials are considering a plan to turn the library card into a form of identification that the city's large illegal immigrant population could use to open bank accounts and access an array of city services.
So you don't check immigration status before issuing a library card, that isn't surprising, the problem is the morons running the city now want to use that library card as identification that will allow illegals access to even more tax payer funded services.
No one expects you to ask for a green card before issuing a library card, but a freaking library card shouldn't be considered identification for ANYTHING.
Not entirely true, at least not in the literal sense. Anyone can live in a residence, and having "proof of residency" (like a PG&E bill) makes you a resident - at least in the eyes of a public library. Again, we don't dig deep enough into people's private lives to know their immigration status.
Btw, foreign visitors have always been allowed to obtain restricted cards in some libraries, basically restricting them to one or two checkouts at a time... we used to do that frequently in my old library, since there were a large number of visitors (tourists, college students, temporary workers, etc) who'd need internet access & materials. So if an illegal immigrant really wanted a library card, and didn't have proof of US residence, they could always just use a foreign passport/ID to get one. Why would they bother lying, when we don't ask or care?
My comment is 100% true. Your key words are bolded. Anybody can live on a property (home, house, trailer, apartment, etc), that does not make them a resident of the state in which they live. Your proof of residency is nothing more then a place where to send late notices and/or requests for payment for damaged books, no? Again, that does not make one a resident of the state in which the may be residing, or within the county or city, for that matter.
A library shouldn't have to dig into peoples lives to determine their status, however, the city wants to use these issued cards as ID's to allow for other benefits and entitlements for people who are not lawfully here. The city should not allow this based on the States own Constitution of denying residence status to unlawful migrants, it is the City attempting to end run the State for their own partisan ideology.
Most unlawful migrants do not have passports with them, some may on the rare occasion. The majority would probably have the Matricula Consula Card as ID. The question I have is how many unlawful migrants have you ran across wanting to check out books? I would imagine the few where probably High School or College kids.
Federal law makes it ILLEGAL for illegal aliens to be there. Funny how the feds want states to enforce laws against marijuana and so on but Obama has a hissy fit of the states enforce other laws like against illegal immigration. Sheesh!
I think because of the shortage of jobs and giving away all those work visas, Obama may have to create jobs in an industry that they know something about. EO on the horizon: legalize marijuana.
States retain their ability to determine residency status and to deny residency to those that are not lawful within the US.
While one may have the liberty to do the drugs, the state and the nation can impose severe limitations on it.
Me thinks you have a mis-understanding of States Rights and State Sovereignty. You must be Libertarian.
States lost the rights to immigration much before 1808. Try the Articles of Confederation (1781).
Again, States hold the rights to Residency, only legal immigrants and citizens can be residents.
Why do you claim that, in the free trade area known as the US? Are you also claiming that the several States of the Union should have their own immigration offices as well. I believe our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated that separation of powers for uniformity among the several States of the Union. Immigration is no longer a States' right. Otherwise, people from the several States may need a passport to even travel between the several States, if what those of the opposing view claim is true. Our Founding Fathers were not as unwise as their posterity in that regard.
In most if not all of the several States, residency requirements are already established. It is usually only a time factor for establishing legal residence in any State of the Union, because, immigration into the US is no longer a States' right since 1808 when it became a federal obligation.
Why do you claim that, in the free trade area known as the US? Are you also claiming that the several States of the Union should have their own immigration offices as well. I believe our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated that separation of powers for uniformity among the several States of the Union. Immigration is no longer a States' right. Otherwise, people from the several States may need a passport to even travel between the several States, if what those of the opposing view claim is true. Our Founding Fathers were not as unwise as their posterity in that regard.
In most if not all of the several States, residency requirements are already established. It is usually only a time factor for establishing legal residence in any State of the Union, because, immigration into the US is no longer a States' right since 1808 when it became a federal obligation.
Free Trade area? you need to define; are you talking within the 50 states or the US and say Mexico (NAFTA)? I only stated that the states still have residency requirements and that to be a resident one must either be a citizen or a lawful immigrant.
Quote:
Article IV, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each state will offer the privileges and immunities of residency within its borders to American citizens residing in other states.
States can ask for verification of national status (I-94) to receive state benefits, to include asking for residency documentation; each state has its own residency requirements. I never stated that immigration is a states right issue, I said residency is a states rights issue. The feds are only in control of naturalization, for which immigration falls under, thus the numerous types of federal visas, immigrant and non-immigrant. You are attempting to skew the understanding of the feds being in charge of immigration and the states being able to determine who is resident within there state. I mean, even the fed laws deny illegals in-state tuition, yet states have gone around that by authorizing illegals who have attended high school for a minimum of so many years may get in-state tuition, based on high school attendance and not legal residency in the state.
I suggest you learn that each state does not allow illegal immigrants residency status within the state itself. Simply residing within the state does not make one a resident of the state. Even the feds do not recognize illegals as lawful residents. Those who are in the United States with nonimmigrant alien status are precluded by federal immigration law from establishing residence.
Whats this 1808 law you claim (link please)? The Prohibition on Slave importing?
Quote:
Article I, section 9 says that prior to 1808 Congress may not prohibit the "Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit"--implying that Congress can control immigration policy and the importation of slaves starting in 1808.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 09-15-2012 at 12:50 PM..
I am only saying that immigration into the US is no longer a States' right and therefore, the several States have no basis to care, except for political passions of the moment, if someone is from out of state or from out of State. "Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is what the several States no longer have any authority over since 1808. It is clearly enumerated and in my opinion, it is only politicians with no actual solutions to our social dilemmas that are fiscally irresponsible enough and immoral enough to waste the Peoples' time and the Peoples' money on bearing false witness to our own laws, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our flag and republic. From that perspective, our modern social dilemmas are a simple moral failure on the part of persons who even take an Oath to bear true witness to our own laws and to fix that Standard for even professional athletes as role models for the community.
I am only saying that immigration into the US is no longer a States' right and therefore, the several States have no basis to care, except for political passions of the moment, if someone is from out of state or from out of State. "Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is what the several States no longer have any authority over since 1808. It is clearly enumerated and in my opinion, it is only politicians with no actual solutions to our social dilemmas that are fiscally irresponsible enough and immoral enough to waste the Peoples' time and the Peoples' money on bearing false witness to our own laws, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our flag and republic. From that perspective, our modern social dilemmas are a simple moral failure on the part of persons who even take an Oath to bear true witness to our own laws and to fix that Standard for even professional athletes as role models for the community.
Are you of the belief that any and all benefits should be given to anybody and everybody who simply shows up and asks for them? There are both federal and state residency requirements, so why should the state or State not care? You miss the whole point of citizenship and what it means, the allegiance owed and given, the sovereignty earned. Illegals are denied such rights and benefits due to owing allegiance elsewhere and can not be forced to give their allegiance to a State not of their own.
You do realize your phrase is only discussing that of slaves and their importation, right? It has no bearing on immigrants, then or now. I fear you use it for your own inept belief that somehow allows all illegals to live here freely and that you somehow believe that that Act makes them "residents" untouchable. I mean, the Slave Act has absolutely nothing to do with immigration and or the claims you are making with the LA officials attempting to allow for their own ideological beliefs of granting some sort of legality to illegal immigrants. There have been immigration laws in place (starting with the Virginia Colony) since 1606, none of which have changed very much to benefit that of the immigrant.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 09-15-2012 at 09:18 PM..
this isn't up to the libraries as it's a city decision. Do I think it's a good idea? No, not really. But I have many reasons for thinking that, and they don't all have to do with immigrants.
I believe we are in agreement that Public Libraries should not be forced to be in the business of providing purchased ID's.
Quote:
The ID card would include a user's name, address and a photograph, and would be issued through the city's libraries. The city would partner with a private vendor to set up bank accounts for those who want to use the library ID as a debit card. Banks generally require official identification to open an account.
Looks more like it's a way for the City to attempt to make money off of illegals
Quote:
....they [the cards] would come with a cost. Applicants would pay a fee, around $15 to $20, for the card, and then would be able to deposit and withdraw money through a network of ATMs at local grocery stores and shopping malls. There could also be a monthly fee of up to $2.99.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 09-15-2012 at 09:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try the Articles of Confederation (1781).
