The primary for the California governor's race is this June

[Twoller]

The primary elections for the California governor's race is June 8, 2010. Here is a list of candidates so far. Aside from the obvious, can anyone say what each of them have to say about immigration?

http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm

Tom Campbell (R) (http://www.campbell.org/) - Ex-Congressman, Law School Professor, Ex-State Budget Director & '00 US Senate Nominee
Ken Miller (R) (http://www.kencares2010.com/) - Businessman
William Morrison (R)
Steve Poizner (R) (http://www.stevepoizner.com/) - State Insurance Commissioner, Ex-Technology Executive & Ex-White House Fellow
Meg Whitman (R) (http://www.megwhitman.com/) - Ex-eBay CEO
Richard Aguirre (D) (http://www.aguirreforgovernor.com/) - Economist
Jerry Brown (D) (http://www.jerrybrown.org/) - Attorney General, Ex-Governor, Ex-Secretary of State, Ex-Oakland Mayor & Ex-State Democratic Chair
John Chiang (D) (http://www.sco.ca.gov/) - State Controller
Dianne Feinstein (D) (http://feinstein.senate.gov/) - US Senator, Ex-San Francisco Mayor & '90 Nominee
Fred Medill (D) (http://www.fredtv.net/) - College Student
Joe Symmon (D) (http://drjoesymmon.com/) - Non-Profit Group Founder & Pastor
Chelene Nightingale (AIP) (http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/) - Conservative Activist & Entertainer
Lew Tremaine (Green) (http://www.town-of-fairfax.org/html/council.html) - Fairfax Town Councilman
Dale Ogden (Libertarian) (http://www.dalefogden.org/) - Actuarial Consultant & Frequent Candidate
Stewart Alexander (PFP) (http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/) - Community Activist, Car Salesman & Frequent Candidate
Carlos Alvarez (PFP) (http://www.alvarezforgovernor.com/) - Community Activist & '09 Los Angeles Mayor Candidate
Mohammad Arif (PFP) (http://www.mohammadarif.com/) - Website Publisher & '03 Candidate
Georges Marciano (Independent) (http://www.georgesmarciano.com/) - Guess Jeans Co-Founder
Vincent May (Independent) (http://www.wantedcalgov.net/) - Businessman, Ex-Police Officer & USMC Veteran

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Thanks for the links. That made for some interesting reading.

I believe I may have found a new candidate. Chelene may have just lost a potential voter. I like what Vincent May listed on his site, and without question, his site intro is the coolest of any candidate's on the web.

[Ayatollahgondola]

I haven't seen too much history on this candidate May. The page "about May" doesn't have much in the way of bio.

[Don]

I heard Meg Whitman on one of the talk radio shows and she said she would have voted against Prop. 187 because she's "for the children."

WHOSE CHILDREN MEG? Certainly not American children whose schools and neighborhoods are destroyed when the brown tidal wave sweeps over.

So much for Meg Whitman. Another globalist.

[Rim05]

What we have to pick from is really sad. The old hat pin pick is as good as any.

[Twoller]

It is important to remember, once again, that this June the election will only be the primary election. That is, it is an election held, by the government, for the benefit of the officially recognized political parties. We don't even really need a primary election. This is something that should be held by the political parties themselves.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I heard Meg Whitman on one of the talk radio shows and she said she would have voted against Prop. 187 because she's "for the children."


I, personally, am against the children.

More specifically, the ones born to parents unlawfully in the country, who are mostly unfit to raise kids, regardless of their immigration status, because they have little education and insufficient incomes to care for them without taxpayer assistance.

[Commander Bunny]

Lew Tremaine (Green) - Fairfax Town Councilman

I was born & raised in Fairfax, and currently the Town is ground-center for Progressives/Liberals, right smack-dab in the center of ultra-Liberal Marin county.
Fairfax has 'Bans" on almost everything,( styrofoam, plastic bags, woodstoves, etc.) and was the first "nuclear-free zone" in the world...They have signs on all roads going in/out of Town proclaiming this.
Chances are if you were to walk into Town, You either have on Your person, or might be wearing something "banned/illegal", if You were'nt from the area, and did'nt know what was "cool", or frowned apon by the Locals.
Lynnette Shaw, also from Faifax, ran for Lt.Governor last election, and if I remeber right about 2% of the vote.
She started, and ran the Marin Medical Cannabis Aliance, and ran a dispensary a few years before Ca.'s Prop 215 (medical cannabis) was even voted into law, pre-1996, how She even got away with it....Who knows?

Here's the Towns festival poster, look at all of the bubbles for little symbols. mlike the Obama wave, the letters "UN".

http://www.fairfaxfestival.com/
So that sorta give You a peek into Lew's politics, as far as a Canidate goes.

As far as Meg goes..will She force Me into getting a PayPal acount to vote for Her??...I never liked Her when she ran eBay, and made it a PayPal/credit card only site for Buyers/Sellers, made the site feel impersonal to Me, now I rarely ever go there, except for price references on items I might have for sale, or buy on OTHER websites that allow checks/Money orders.

But on a positive note...at least Gavin Newsom is'nt running....now that Guy is scary.

CB.

[Kathy63]

The one I find most qualified is Tom Campbell. He will get my vote in the primary.

I too am against the "children". Whitman's opposition to 187 is enough to eliminate her from consideration unless she is the candidate opposing Jerry Brown.

Community activist and entertainer is not enough to persuade most Californians for a vote.

[PochoPatriot]

I am with Kathy. Tom Campbell gets my vote. After that, I will be voting Republican. I cannot give my vote to a candidate that does not have any chance of winning.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

FYI: Tom Campbell has indicated his approval of the notion of granting residency to illegal aliens who arrived here as minors.

[Rim05]

Thanks DA.

[Kathy63]

FYI: Tom Campbell has indicated his approval of the notion of granting residency to illegal aliens who arrived here as minors.

Really! What a shame. Does that have something to do with the massive number of illegals and a voting progeny????

I suppose the proper recipient of my vote would then have to be the person likely to do the least amount of damage.

[PochoPatriot]

FYI: Tom Campbell has indicated his approval of the notion of granting residency to illegal aliens who arrived here as minors.

Yeah, and?

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Yeah, and?


Yeah, and I'm not voting for someone who is going to address California's biggest problem in a half-assed fashion.

Getting rid of some of the illegals is not enough to fix much of what is wrong with California. Getting rid of all of the illegals in such a manner that they take tens of thousands of their American-born offspring with them when they leave, is. Just about anything other than what is described in my last sentence keeps us on the financially ruinous and culturally poisoned Highway to Hell on which we are currently driving, only at a slower rate of speed.

[Twoller]

Yeah, and?

Do you approve of giving amnesty to illegals who arrived as minors?

What a strange idea. Why would amnesty not include illegals who arrive as minors? Why are amnesty advocates making this distinction?

[PochoPatriot]

Yeah, and I'm not voting for someone who is going to address California's biggest problem in a half-assed fashion.

Getting rid of some of the illegals is not enough to fix much of what is wrong with California. Getting rid of all of the illegals in such a manner that they take tens of thousands of their American-born offspring with them when they leave, is. Just about anything other than what is described in my last sentence keeps us on the financially ruinous and culturally poisoned Highway to Hell on which we are currently driving, only at a slower rate of speed.

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:

Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

[Ayatollahgondola]

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:



I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

I don't believe it would be ex-post facto to interpret the law. If it was a new law, that would be different.

[Rim05]

However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

Does not seem 'sticky' to me, it is just completing the job. Half a job is just that, half a job.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:



I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.



I'm missing the ex post facto distinction you're making (???) You lost me, dude.

I want illegal aliens to be deported. Whether they came here voluntarily or not is irrelevant as to current immigration laws. They're supposed to be removed, whether they arrived as adults or minors.

As a byproduct of the parents being removed (not legal action), I realize that many who are removed will take their children with them to preserve family unity or out of economic necessity. I consider that a good thing. Anchor babies graduate from high school in low numbers and are more likely to have run ins with the criminal justice system. As many as the families will carry back home is all good, from my perspective.

[PochoPatriot]

I'm missing the ex post facto distinction you're making (???) You lost me, dude.

I want illegal aliens to be deported. Whether they came here voluntarily or not is irrelevant as to current immigration laws. They're supposed to be removed, whether they arrived as adults or minors.

As a byproduct of the parents being removed (not legal action), I realize that many who are removed will take their children with them to preserve family unity or out of economic necessity. I consider that a good thing. Anchor babies graduate from high school in low numbers and are more likely to have run ins with the criminal justice system. As many as the families will carry back home is all good, from my perspective.

OK, I think we are having miscommunication. The term "anchor baby" refers to children born in this country to illegal alien parents. Current case law has been that these children ARE citizens of the United States by "jus soli" (literally "law of ground) or birthright citizenship. This was established in US vs Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 [1898]). Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive.

Now a minor who was brought to this country illegally by parents entering this country illegally is an entirely different animal. I happen to know a young man who is in this predicament. It is a messy situation, but I have made it known to this young man must return to Mexico and come back legally now that he is of age. Most of those who advocate for him disagree with me. However, because of other issues that I will not enumerate here, I believe it behooves this young man to return to a country he has no knowledge of in order to make his status in this country legal.

To me the real problem isn't the children (anchor babies or illegals). The real problem is the government and the education system that is run by leftist and Socialists. These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

Anyway, my concern is that the Constitution be upheld regardless of our personal convictions. Sometimes I think that in our righteous anger over this illegal invasion we are suffering we say things in anger or exasperation that we may not mean. Not to mention we say things that may not meet Constitutional muster.

[Rim05]

These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.


Yep, Pocho. That statement is true in a lot of cases but not all. LA school board has been taken over by hispanics and so has LA city government. Could it be the mixing of religion and politics? The Catholic Church is very much into politics and religion.

[Twoller]

OK, I think we are having miscommunication. The term "anchor baby" refers to children born in this country to illegal alien parents. Current case law has been that these children ARE citizens of the United States by "jus soli" (literally "law of ground) or birthright citizenship. This was established in US vs Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 [1898]). Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive

...

"Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive."

Why not? Why can't we make it retroactive? Do you think we would be better off if we could make it retroactive?

....

....

To me the real problem isn't the children (anchor babies or illegals). The real problem is the government and the education system that is run by leftist and Socialists. These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

....

Do you think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given any public education at all? You don't see that as being the real problem?

....

Anyway, my concern is that the Constitution be upheld regardless of our personal convictions. Sometimes I think that in our righteous anger over this illegal invasion we are suffering we say things in anger or exasperation that we may not mean. Not to mention we say things that may not meet Constitutional muster.

But the constitution does not speak for itself and, rather obviously, our immigration and the process by which we mint citizens has been vastly corrupted. It doesn't make much sense to try to confront the issue within the confines of what is true constitutionally when illegal immigration is operating outside of what is constitutionally true. What we say should not be limited by the constitution.

The constitution is a fluid document. It was not carved in stone by God, it was written by human beings and we agree to it as a matter of citizenship and no other reason. We could change it to make it more explicit as to the issue of citizenship and who or who should not qualify as US citizens.

[PochoPatriot]

"Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive."

Why not? Why can't we make it retroactive?

It would be, in my opinion as a layman, unconstitutional. If someone, such as, SZ, can demonstrate to me from case law why this would not be the case, then I would be willing to change my view.

Do you think we would be better off if we could make it retroactive?

If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?

Do you think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given any public education at all?

Based on the law as it presently stands, yes, they should.

You don't see that as being the real problem?

The real problem is a government that does not enforce its sovereign borders.

But the constitution does not speak for itself and, rather obviously, our immigration and the process by which we mint citizens has been vastly corrupted. It doesn't make much sense to try to confront the issue within the confines of what is true constitutionally when illegal immigration is operating outside of what is constitutionally true. What we say should not be limited by the constitution.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

The constitution is a fluid document.

So you are a liberal, then? Only liberals make this sort of statement.

It was not carved in stone by God, it was written by human beings and we agree to it as a matter of citizenship and no other reason. We could change it to make it more explicit as to the issue of citizenship and who or who should not qualify as US citizens.

Yes, we could, and should, according to the manner in which the Constitution prescribes.

[Twoller]

Only a "liberal' would believe that we should be giving public education to the children of illegal immigrants. If we educate the children of illegal immigrants, that is just one more incentive for them to come here illegally.

Do you think the children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens by birth? If not, then why not and if you have a good reason, then why should the children of illegal immigrants ever be considered US citizens?

"If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?"

What the government does to illegals has nothing to do with what the US government can or can't do to US citizens. Why is it necessary to explain this?

[PochoPatriot]

Only a "liberal' would believe that we should be giving public education to the children of illegal immigrants. If we educate the children of illegal immigrants, that is just one more incentive for them to come here illegally.

You can call me a liberal if you like, but I am only following legal precedent. The way the law is written now, they have the right to it. I want to change that so that this will no longer be the case in the future.

Do you think the children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens by birth? If not, then why not and if you have a good reason, then why should the children of illegal immigrants ever be considered US citizens?

No, I do not think that children of illegal aliens should be given birthright citizenship. In fact, birth right citizenship should be ended. I believe that the citizenship of the mother should be bestowed upon any child born in the United States. I believe that the changing of the birthright citizenship to what I mention above would require a Constitutional amendment which might invalidate the 14th Amendment and cause problems with some African-American citizens.

The good reason I have that children born in the past and until the law changes are American citizens is US case law. You might want to read those decisions.

"If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?"

What the government does to illegals has nothing to do with what the US government can or can't do to US citizens. Why is it necessary to explain this?

Actually, it does have a lot to do with American citizens. Sadly, it seems that there are people who have failed to learn anything from history, and therefore are doomed to repeat it.

[Twoller]

....

What the government does to illegals has nothing to do with what the US government can or can't do to US citizens. Why is it necessary to explain this?

Actually, it does have a lot to do with American citizens. Sadly, it seems that there are people who have failed to learn anything from history, and therefore are doomed to repeat it.

It doesn't and you know it. And, furthermore, I know a threat when I hear one. Not a personal threat in this case, but a political threat.

I know that part of the arsenal of those who threaten the sovereignty of peoples everywhere is the promise that their own laws will be twisted against them. The first obligation of our legal system is the protection of US citizens and the first obligation of our legal system in regards to illegal immigrants is removing them from the country. And their offspring. The role of the constitution in the affairs of illegal immigrants and anyone who is not a citizen extends only to the extent that it protects citizens first. We will not corrupt our laws by creating a second legal system for people who are not citizens.

The United States of America exists for its states and its citizens in those states. There is nobody or nothing else that those citizens have any cause to be concerned with. And there is nobody or nothing else that its government has cause to be concerned with. Everyone else who steps foot in this country is a guest and should presume absolutely and unequivocally nothing more. And those who have falsely assumed the guise of US citizenship are something considerably less than guests.

[ilbegone]

Ok, there are things we might not agree on.

How about taking the staircase one step at a time rather than trying to jump flat footed to the second story?

What might be accomplished in a year? Two years?


Gutierrez has introduced an outrageous amnesty bill. What can we do about that? If it's torpedoed, can we also sink the next two dozen that come along before before the make up of Congress changes?

How can the economic situation be exploited to get rid of the notion that American culture is something to be stamped out and that we'd be better off being Balkanized "citizens of the world"?

[CitaDeL]

Off Topic?

[LAPhil]

FYI: Tom Campbell has indicated his approval of the notion of granting residency to illegal aliens who arrived here as minors.
Actually you're wrong about that, DA. I took the last quote in my signature directly from a statement on the web site where he discusses illegal immigration.

[Twoller]

Actually you're wrong about that, DA. I took my signature directly from his statement on the web site where he discusses illegal immigration.

Where can we find out more about this guy? Did he attend private or public school before university?

[LAPhil]

Where can we find out more about this guy? Did he attend private or public school before university?
This is directly from his web site:

"Tom has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. His faculty advisor was Milton Friedman. Prior to that, Tom had obtained his B.A. and M.A. degrees in economics from the University of Chicago, on the same day in 1973. He then entered Harvard Law School where he served on the Harvard Law Review Board of Editors. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law in 1976. After law school, Tom served as law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Thereafter, Tom returned to the University of Chicago for his economics doctorate, received in 1980. His free market economics training cemented a life-long commitment to limited government and greater individual liberty."

Another really good thing about Campbell is if you subscribe to his e-mail alerts he'll notify you when he has a "telephone town hall meeting" and you can participate just by signing up ahead of time and entering your login code on the phone just before the call. I've talked to him on one of these and was extremely impressed with his intelligence and knowledge of the issues. His callers also ask really intelligent questions.

[Twoller]

I'd still like to know where he attended school before university, was it public or private. A simple and intelligent question, if you ask me. What kind of community does he come from? There is very little information about him, really, for somebody who wants to become governor of California.

[LAPhil]

I'd still like to know where he attended school before university, was it public or private. A simple and intelligent question, if you ask me. What kind of community does he come from? There is very little information about him, really, for somebody who wants to become governor of California.
Why are those things important? What is it you're really trying to find out?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Why are those things important? What is it you're really trying to find out?

Maybe he wants to make sure we don't have Obama's half brother ending up in the capitol. :)

[LAPhil]

Maybe he wants to make sure we don't have Obama's half brother ending up in the capitol. :)
I'd be rather surprised if the two of them turned out to be same person. :)

[Twoller]

Maybe he wants to make sure we don't have Obama's half brother ending up in the capitol. :)

Good point. We still know more about the Obamination then we do about Campbell and apparently that isn't enough. You can't know too much about these people. Obama, for example attended several private schools before university. And a lot of people are not completely convinced he attended Columbia like he says he did.

[LAPhil]

Good point. We still know more about the Obamination then we do about Campbell and apparently that isn't enough. You can't know too much about these people. Obama, for example attended several private schools before university. And a lot of people are not completely convinced he attended Columbia like he says he did.
Twoller, what is the deal with the private schools? How many governors have we ever had the need to know what high schools and/or grade schools they attended?