• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

State downright unwelcoming to hispanics.

Steve

Well-known member
WASHINGTON – A year ago Montanans decided they would withhold state services from illegal aliens, and now their lawmakers are preparing to take the next step to make sure state residents are in the United States legally.

A year ago LR 121, a measure to deny all state services to illegal aliens, was passed by a 79.5% approval of the voters. This would include all those covered under Pres. Barack Obama’s illegal dream act which allowed 800,000 illegal aliens to remain in the US illegally and obtain work permits, drivers’ licenses, and other state benefits. Under LR 121 none of those illegals would be able to receive such benefits from the state of Montana.


The legislature is reviewing a bill that would penalize any city that chooses to establish a “sanctuary” policy.

Other states like Arizona and Alabama have taken other measures to deter illegal aliens and many of those measures have worked and numbers have been reduced.

The bill is currently in the Montana House Judiciary Committee and will be voted on Friday.

let see if the new Governor cares more about illegals then citizens..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Steve said:
WASHINGTON – A year ago Montanans decided they would withhold state services from illegal aliens, and now their lawmakers are preparing to take the next step to make sure state residents are in the United States legally.

A year ago LR 121, a measure to deny all state services to illegal aliens, was passed by a 79.5% approval of the voters. This would include all those covered under Pres. Barack Obama’s illegal dream act which allowed 800,000 illegal aliens to remain in the US illegally and obtain work permits, drivers’ licenses, and other state benefits. Under LR 121 none of those illegals would be able to receive such benefits from the state of Montana.


The legislature is reviewing a bill that would penalize any city that chooses to establish a “sanctuary” policy.

Other states like Arizona and Alabama have taken other measures to deter illegal aliens and many of those measures have worked and numbers have been reduced.

The bill is currently in the Montana House Judiciary Committee and will be voted on Friday.

let see if the new Governor cares more about illegals then citizens..

Maybe OT thinks those illegals should have been aborted, because they're unwanted? :???:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
Maybe OT thinks those illegals should have been aborted, because they're unwanted? :???:

In hindsight a pic of OT might have been a pretty good advertisement at least in favor of birth control....and if that failed...well........................
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
Maybe OT thinks those illegals should have been aborted, because they're unwanted? :???:

In hindsight a pic of OT might have been a pretty good advertisement at least in favor of birth control....and if that failed...well........................

Are you trying to say OT is a poster child for the pro-abortion groups?

If that's so, then "Weight Watchers" could use the same poster.

A Double-Whammy for the advertising firm. :wink:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
WASHINGTON – A year ago Montanans decided they would withhold state services from illegal aliens, and now their lawmakers are preparing to take the next step to make sure state residents are in the United States legally.

A year ago LR 121, a measure to deny all state services to illegal aliens, was passed by a 79.5% approval of the voters. This would include all those covered under Pres. Barack Obama’s illegal dream act which allowed 800,000 illegal aliens to remain in the US illegally and obtain work permits, drivers’ licenses, and other state benefits. Under LR 121 none of those illegals would be able to receive such benefits from the state of Montana.


The legislature is reviewing a bill that would penalize any city that chooses to establish a “sanctuary” policy.

Other states like Arizona and Alabama have taken other measures to deter illegal aliens and many of those measures have worked and numbers have been reduced.

The bill is currently in the Montana House Judiciary Committee and will be voted on Friday.

I wonder if OT voted in favor of this legislation? If he did, that would make him something of an anarchist......voting against the will of the Feds.

If he didn't vote in favor of the legislation, he must frantic for not having been part of the majority. :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sounds to me that 79.5% of Montanians are "racist". And it the majority agreed, then that makes everybody "racist"

OT should just hurry up and join the Tea Party. He lives their "creed".

He's a walking "mission statement" for them. :lol: :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Hooray for Montana... hopefully everyone in Montana will encourage their legislature to vote yes ....

Since the federal government has no intention of booting out illegals and getting them off the government teat (40% of illegal aliens are still drawing government benefits 20 years later) because they want a North American Union, its going to be up to the individual states to keep them off the government roles......
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sounds to me that 79.5% of Montanians are "racist". And if the majority agreed, then that makes everybody "racist"

yep... if they ain't out protesting and having this racist bill taken down.. and stomped on.. then they are just following the backslapping cult...

I guess by the left's silence,.. they are all for this racist bill...

:lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Sounds to me that 79.5% of Montanians are "racist". And if the majority agreed, then that makes everybody "racist"

yep... if they ain't out protesting and having this racist bill taken down.. and stomped on.. then they are just following the backslapping cult...

I guess by the left's silence,.. they are all for this racist bill...

:lol:

I don't know if the left is for the bill or not- but do know most of the voters of the state are...And from what I gathered- most Montanans are NOT racist- just honest folks that don't believe in promoting/rewarding illegal activity... Much of this state is populated by 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who LEGALLY immigrated to the country- or Natives who were here before the Europeans- and they want any new folks coming in to be legal too...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Sounds to me that 79.5% of Montanians are "racist". And if the majority agreed, then that makes everybody "racist"

yep... if they ain't out protesting and having this racist bill taken down.. and stomped on.. then they are just following the backslapping cult...

I guess by the left's silence,.. they are all for this racist bill...

:lol:

I don't know if the left is for the bill or not- but do know most of the voters of the state are...And from what I gathered- most Montanans are NOT racist- just honest folks that don't believe in promoting/rewarding illegal activity... Much of this state is populated by 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who LEGALLY immigrated to the country- or Natives who were here before the Europeans- and they want any new folks coming in to be legal too...

So, they're Tea Party types is what you're saying?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Sounds to me that 79.5% of Montanians are "racist". And if the majority agreed, then that makes everybody "racist"

yep... if they ain't out protesting and having this racist bill taken down.. and stomped on.. then they are just following the backslapping cult...

I guess by the left's silence,.. they are all for this racist bill...

:lol:

I don't know if the left is for the bill or not- but do know most of the voters of the state are...And from what I gathered- most Montanans are NOT racist- just honest folks that don't believe in promoting/rewarding illegal activity... Much of this state is populated by 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who LEGALLY immigrated to the country- or Natives who were here before the Europeans- and they want any new folks coming in to be legal too...

So why is it racist when Alabama and Arizona address tier illegal immigration issues?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
yep... if they ain't out protesting and having this racist bill taken down.. and stomped on.. then they are just following the backslapping cult...

I guess by the left's silence,.. they are all for this racist bill...

:lol:

I don't know if the left is for the bill or not- but do know most of the voters of the state are...And from what I gathered- most Montanans are NOT racist- just honest folks that don't believe in promoting/rewarding illegal activity... Much of this state is populated by 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who LEGALLY immigrated to the country- or Natives who were here before the Europeans- and they want any new folks coming in to be legal too...

So why is it racist when Alabama and Arizona address tier illegal immigration issues?

I REALLY want to hear the answer to this lie. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
I don't know if the left is for the bill or not- but do know most of the voters of the state are...And from what I gathered- most Montanans are NOT racist- just honest folks that don't believe in promoting/rewarding illegal activity... Much of this state is populated by 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who LEGALLY immigrated to the country- or Natives who were here before the Europeans- and they want any new folks coming in to be legal too...

So why is it racist when Alabama and Arizona address tier illegal immigration issues?

I REALLY want to hear the answer to this lie. :lol:

Alabama and Arizona were proposing/passed laws that had parts that were unconstitutional...In fact the question of racism was left open by the Justices- who said they would/could look at how they enforced the remaining laws at a later time...

The Montana legislation designates NO race , creed, or color-- only that they cannot be illegal immigrants/aliens and get Montana services... I haven't looked at the proposed law wording (altho I voted for the referendum)- but as long as there are no federal funds tied into the services- it may hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Steve said:
So why is it racist when Alabama and Arizona address tier illegal immigration issues?

I REALLY want to hear the answer to this lie. :lol:

Alabama and Arizona were proposing/passed laws that had parts that were unconstitutional...In fact the question of racism was left open by the Justices- who said they would/could look at how they enforced the remaining laws at a later time...

The Montana legislation designates NO race , creed, or color-- only that they cannot be illegal immigrants/aliens and get Montana services... I haven't looked at the proposed law wording (altho I voted for the referendum)- but as long as there are no federal funds tied into the services- it may hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny....

I Knew It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Steve said:
So why is it racist when Alabama and Arizona address tier illegal immigration issues?

I REALLY want to hear the answer to this lie. :lol:

Alabama and Arizona were proposing/passed laws that had parts that were unconstitutional...In fact the question of racism was left open by the Justices- who said they would/could look at how they enforced the remaining laws at a later time...

The Montana legislation designates NO race , creed, or color-- only that they cannot be illegal immigrants/aliens and get Montana services... I haven't looked at the proposed law wording (altho I voted for the referendum)- but as long as there are no federal funds tied into the services- it may hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny....

please show US where in the Arizona and Alabama bills it designated race, creed, color, or even sexual orientation?

or any discriminatory factor.. other then not supposed to be here by federal law. ...

cause I am will to bet they didn't either...
 

Steve

Well-known member
The Alabama law requires that if police have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an immigrant unlawfully present in the United States, in the midst of any legal stop, detention or arrest, to make a similarly reasonable attempt to determine that person's legal status. An exemption is provided if such action would hinder an official investigation of some kind.

The law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving any public benefits at either the state or local level.

The law prohibits the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants [currently blocked[7]]

It forbids employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants for any job within Alabama. Moreover, it considers as a discriminatory practice any action to refuse to employ or remove a legal resident of the state when an illegal one is already employed [currently blocked[7]]

The law requires large and small businesses to validate the immigration status of employees using the US E-Verify program. The law prohibits illegal immigrants from applying for work.[currently blocked[7]][2]

The production of false identification documents is considered a crime. Contracts formed in which one party is an illegal immigrant and the other has direct knowledge of that are deemed null and void. The law also requires voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering.[2]

it even has an anti discrimination provision that bars employers from firing a person "just because he is an illegal..

other then that.. many of the elements of the Alabama law sounds about the same as the Montana laws.

especially the blocked sanctuary provision.. :lol: :p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The main difference the Alabama and Arizona law had from what I understand Montana is proposing/enacted is that Arizona made it a state law that it was a state criminal act to be an illegal and the state could arrest and prosecute under that statute-- which is unconstitutional because immigration enforcement has historically been a Federal jurisdiction-----

while the Montana law will not be arresting anyone- just not giving them state issued benefits unless they can prove they are legal residents...
And in the Arizona decision- they upheld the states ability to check a persons legal status....

And it should not be considered racist since Montana for sometime has required ID and residency proof for getting drivers license, board licensing, voting, etc...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The main difference the Alabama and Arizona law had from what I understand Montana is proposing/enacted is that Arizona made it a state law that it was a state criminal act to be an illegal and the state could arrest and prosecute under that statute-- which is unconstitutional because immigration enforcement has historically been a Federal jurisdiction-----

while the Montana law will not be arresting anyone- just not giving them state issued benefits unless they can prove they are legal residents...
And in the Arizona decision- they upheld the states ability to check a persons legal status....

And it should not be considered racist since Montana for sometime has required ID and residency proof for getting drivers license, board licensing, voting, etc...

First it was a race issue, now it's a "state criminal" issue?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
The main difference the Alabama and Arizona law had from what I understand Montana is proposing/enacted is that Arizona made it a state law that it was a state criminal act to be an illegal and the state could arrest and prosecute under that statute-- which is unconstitutional because immigration enforcement has historically been a Federal jurisdiction-----

while the Montana law will not be arresting anyone- just not giving them state issued benefits unless they can prove they are legal residents...
And in the Arizona decision- they upheld the states ability to check a persons legal status....

And it should not be considered racist since Montana for sometime has required ID and residency proof for getting drivers license, board licensing, voting, etc...

First it was a race issue, now it's a "state criminal" issue?


Being overseen by feds who want let them do a dam thing.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The main difference the Alabama and Arizona law had from what I understand Montana is proposing/enacted is that Arizona made it a state law that it was a state criminal act to be an illegal and the state could arrest and prosecute under that statute-- which is unconstitutional because immigration enforcement has historically been a Federal jurisdiction-----

while the Montana law will not be arresting anyone- just not giving them state issued benefits unless they can prove they are legal residents...
And in the Arizona decision- they upheld the states ability to check a persons legal status....

And it should not be considered racist since Montana for sometime has required ID and residency proof for getting drivers license, board licensing, voting, etc...

your law mirrors much of the Alabama law.. period.. in fact it is eventually part of their law ... a part that is currently blocked by the courts...

so again.. how can they be racists when the law you support is not?
 
Top