10/12   So given that Schwarzenegger is going to win reelection, how do you
        plan to vote?  As a conservative who thinks R's are now useless and am
        interested in securing the border, I'm going to be voting for the
        Libertarian candidate, Art Olivier (electart.com). -emarkp
        \_ God, emarkp, don't you get it?  the issue is illegal immigration,
           not border security!   right now border is not secure because
           there is a huge incentive for them to get acrossed without much
           downside.   To REALLY address the problem, we need to either
           remove the incentive, and/or increase the disincentive.
           If you REALLY want to solve the problem, PUNISH THE EMPLOYERS
           SEVERELY for hiring illegal immigrants.  *BUT* that is against
           the core GOP's platform of corporate welfare.    The entire
           issue of "illegal immigrant" is actually an issue of "corporate
           welfare,"  as corporations can exploit cheap labors without mandated
           benifits, and push the cost of illegal immigrants to the government
           (schools, emergency care, etc).  If you want a sensible immigration
           policy, then, write your GOP congressman and push for punishment
           for the employer.   If you just want to use this issue to win
           elections, just keep secure the border, then.
                                kngharv, bitter legal immigrant
           \_ Now is the time for the Invisible Hand to point out that if the
              U.S. didn't spend so much effort imposing unfair trade agreements
              on Mexico which destroy the livlihoods of Mexican farmers there
              would not be so much motivation for people to migrate north
              and this problem would be much smaller.
           \_ FYI, I'm currently working on a research project re
              employer punishment statutes for my con. law prof.
              He is concerned that one possible challenge to these
              statutes is that the states lack the power to enact
              them b/c any enactment related to immigration is
              exclusively w/in the power of the fed. gov, therefore
              the states, even in the absence of fed. action, lack
              the power to act in this field.
              I'm not sure, but I think that the states can argue that
              in the absence of fed action (or expressed inaction), they
              can enact these laws, even though they are related to
              immigration policy.
              \_ If you're a law student then surely you know about the
                 10th Amendment. I don't think the Constitution mentions
                 immigration at all. Correct me if I am wrong. Therefore,
                 this is a matter for the States.
                 \_ Under Art I, Sec 8 cl 4 Congress has the
                    power to "establish an uniform rule of
                    naturalization." This power has been viewed
                    very broadly by courts to touch on all aspects
                    of immigration law and policy. In addition,
                    Art I, Sec 8 cl 3 and Art I, Sec 10 further
                    limit what states can do in the field of
                    foreign affairs.
                    Since the Const. has expressly delegated
                    the immigration and naturalization power to
                    Congress, the 10th does not apply.
                    Even if the immigration clause didn't exist
                    there is a STRONG argument under US v. Curtis-
                    Wright Corp. that the regulation of immigration
                    is a power so closely tied w/ national
                    sovereignty that the states are barred from
                    acting in that area.
                    Also re the 10th - it is basically useless.
                    Also re the 10th - it is basically meaningless.
                    All it says is that powers not delegated are
                    reserved. Well, if the power was not delegated
                    it would necessarily be reserved. In addition,
                    the 10th does not require EXPRESS delegation.
                    Implicit delegation is also sufficient. As in
                    Curtis-Wright, it only applies to powers that
                    the states actually had before the Const. If
                    the states didn't have the power, then it can't
                    be reserved.
                    the states (or the people) didn't have the power,
                    then it can't be reserved.
        \_ I plan to vote in my home state, where we don't even have a
           governator.
        \_ You could do what my friend did and bake a lot of muffins
           and go to the borderand hang out with the Minutemen
           \_ If I lived further south, I would.  But I was asking about the
              election. -emarkp
        \_ Who cares.  Schawarzanegger is going to win.  The Propositions
           are more interesting.  What do you feel about Prop 90?
           \_ There's an election or something soon right?
        \_ I'm voting for Schwarzenegger, even though I think that the
           GOP on a national level is really messed up. I think that
           by supporting sane GOP candiates like McCain and Ah-nuld,
           we can rid the party of the wackos.
           \_ What principles of the GOP platform do you think the gov.
              believes in? -emarkp
              \_ Who gives a shit anyway. a) 3rd parties can't win. b) with
                 two parties, political values only loosely map onto the two
                 candidates we get stuck with. Sometimes I wish we were
                 parliamentary like the Euros. But then the fundies would
                 probably have even more power.
                 \_ a) is incorrect at the state level.  The examples that
                    come immediately to mind are Jesse Ventura and Loell
                    Weicker.  Not common, but not insignificant either.