OK, sense when can Foregin Countries sue our states, or join a Suit?

1. 61

   dutchman1951posted 12 years ago

   Saw on the News tonight, 11.  ELEVEN   South and Central American Countries are being allowed to enter the Law suit against Georga Immigration Law Legislation?
   
   what is going on, what are we thinking people?
   
   sense when does or Goverment turn or even be allowed to turn its back on State Rights for the Good of the People of that State?
   
   Sense when can Foregin Goverments sue in a US Cort a State of the USA.?  Can any US State Sue inside South America, inside any Country border in South America?
   
   Can States not protect thier own Funds and budgets for welfare, schools, and Care of sick and injured, social programs, highways, streets infrastructure;  all that is there for its Citizens. Whom are registered citizens of the USA and That state.
   
   Why are they allowed to sue for their  citizens to come here and over-run the state systems and budgets and put those State Tax base's in Jepordy.
   
   Who or what in the ....  have we become?
   
   This is nuts! Where is our Goverment?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "sense when does or Goverment turn or even be allowed to turn its back on State Rights for the Good of the People of that State?"
      
      Despite the spelling errors, I think I understand what you were asking.
      
      And, here is your answer:
      
      "Amendment 10 of the US Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      replyreport
2. 60

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   At least these guys are returning the favour legally !  After several decades of the US funding contra terrorists in those countries to delay the inevitable turn to the left after a long history of corruption and exploitation.
   
   The US should take note of how to do things legally, like bringing people to trial rather than executing them and keeping their weapons (at least) within designated war zones and out of other neighbouring countries, an illegal and hypocritical way of bullying smaller countries that goes way back at least to Cambodia and Laos !

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If what you are saying here was the reasoning, I would also say, finaly we are seeing parity, but...
      
      Politics, makes me suspect it is allowed to Build illegal vote Bloks to keep bad Legislators in, and Control State Goverments. and staying hidden when they do it.
      
      What you say makes sense, but I am suspicious, I really am.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         and I agree that you should be suspicious all the time because government is no longer a friend or representative of the people, it is only for and of itself.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            you correct on the Contra's issues, we did do that

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wow - very nice rebuttal. Good work.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

   Anyone can sue, collecting is another story.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately it is not about collecting when one has been wronged; it is about forcing the American public to support foreign nationals that have managed to violate American laws while remaining free to continue to do so.
      
      In addition Georgia lawyers are claiming that the groups have no standing to sue - it remains to the court to decide that issue. 
      
      However, if the Mexican President can try to tell Americans what laws they can make it would seem reasonable that other nations can sue to prevent loss of charity to their citizens violating American laws.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Paul any one as in Citizen of the Us, but the President of mexico?, or say, Brazil's Goverment for an example, to me, not allowable, but I could be wrong.

      replyreport
4. 61

   dutchman1951posted 12 years ago

   agree wilderness, and thats the scarry part. My question is where would the Constitution stand in this, or would it?
   
   not sure

   replyreport
5. 95

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   I am not aware of anything in the constitution that requires American citizens to support foreign nationals.  Or American citizens, for that matter.
   
   Nor am I aware of anything that forbids other nations from using our laws to enforce our laws.  If that makes sense. 
   
   The Georgia folk would seem to disagree with that second statement however, and they are the lawyers not me.  And it could well be nothing but political posturing or playing the legal game.

   replyreport
6. 59

   Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago

   I wouls assume that the recent supreme joke of a court's decision to consider a corporation, including foriegn coporations, as human with the same rights as a person who was actually born might have something to do with this. I would also like to point out my use of the word "assume". With that said, let the beat down begin,:-)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Is that a bad thing though ?  doesn't granting the rights of .. .  also mean that a Corporation has the same responsibilities as a 'born' person ?   This would be a good thing I would have thought.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely not...if they were held accountable for the responsibilities of a "born person", then it would be great. However, they legally have absolutely NONE of the responsibilities of an individual, yet have all of the rights. No accountability whatsoever, and given to an entity that is legally tasked with the fundamental incentive to maximize profits. Let that sink in...

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am not sure this would be the case internationally, like Bhopal where the survivors are still waiting for more than a crappy handout and a superficial cleanup.  To be able to pursue a corp as if it were a (rich) individual in the international courts might get better results - but I have not looked at any of the issues so am just 'thinking' aloud.
            
            I would favour the Chinese approach - recently the boss and his director responsible for the melamine in the milk that killed a few people and damaged many others were shot.  This approach to any deliberate harm in the profiteering cycle gets my vote

            replyreport
            1. 61

               dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               recomend, I think here in the US they would have to proove criminal intent first, before they could charge them with anything. With the Judges we have, who knows.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't you have criminal negligence in the US ?  I can imagine this would be the route of choice for any suing of BP for being in charge of the American company that caused the oil spill in the Gulf and BP to sue siad company in its turn ?

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Stump?   Class C Corporations have had that right for a Long Time???
      
      Thats a sore point with me to, because if they have the same rights, then they can take the same money hits like we do also, and they do not????
      
      anyway, The Foregin Countries asking to Join are Goverments, on behalf of thier citizens here illegialy, and not a standing american Corp?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Dutch, I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that these countries aren't using the American way of interefering in the operations of foreign governments they disagree with. Either convertly overthrow the government or simply attack the country. How many South and Ceatral American governments have we attacked in the name of what ever resources we wanted? I don't agree with what's going on but I do at least respect these countries for trying something other than open or covert war to get their way. Granted they may or may not have the ability to attack us. Too many Americans feel that what ever this country wants it get, regardless of how many people have to die for it.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Do you not think that the Mexican govt. in particular "encourages" its people to enter the US illegally?
            
            When that same govt. virtually demands that the US allow the process to continue it think that it is a foregone conclusion.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am considering this Stump, and how really wrong it is. But we can ban up to stop that, go after the People who aprove such actions, but does that elivate the Foregin Goverments responsibility to enforse it's own immagration rules?
            
            one problem not necessarly of the other I think, but yes we need to stop both.

            replyreport
7. 60

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   Since the Leftists and Progressives want to destroy our Soveriegnty. The precedent was set when Obama let Mexico join their lawsuit. And it is a dangerous precedent indeed.
   
   This is not over spill or anything to do with Co.s, it is over American Domestic Policy, and that is none of their bussiness. They need to come and take their people back to where they belong, if they are coming here at all and to do anything. Thats what the court should order of these countries.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Personally I support dumping them on the embassy lawn and confining them there until the respective embassies make arrangements to send them home.  If they won't do it, shut the embassy down, sell the property and use the proceeds to escalate the fight.

      replyreport
8. 59

   Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago

   wild, there is too much money being made by private prisons for the immigration problem to be solved any time soon. These prisons are billing our government at the same rate they charge to watch murderers and rapists. One has to wonder about the American companies that are firing American workers and moving their operations to a country where the citizens are incapable of making a living with the wages they are being paid. Hershey's chocolate is just one of many so called American companies that have chosen to leave America in search of workers that are paid less than slave wages. The continued war on drugs for profit is also ciontributing to the influx of people into this country. Again America contributes to a problem and then gets it's panties in a wad over the results. Unless I'm mistaken, these same prison systems are being compansated for transportation of the illegals once they squeeze every dollar out of our government for housing them.
   
   Good grief, some in our government conspire to send guns to mexican drug lords and then complain when they are used to kill Americans. If the drug cartels couldn't make any money selling drugs, they would soon find a new business. Our continued war on drugs is a prime reason they continue to make millions. Those who support this war that has accomplished nothing in 40 years, will not allow a drop in the profits they have made for these 40  years and counting.

   replyreport
9. 59

   Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago

   Dutch, I just had a sobering thought. With all the problems we face in this country, is there anything that's actually being done correctly and/or in the best interests of the people in this country? Every problem we face seems to come back to one issue. There is too much profit in maintaining the staus quo to fix it. Every solution to every problem we face will mean someone, or some corporation, will lose money. It's not profitable to fix this country and as long as protecting these profits is the most important thing in the minds of our elected officials, this country will continue to self destruct.   I'm not sure but is this a normal result of a capitalist society or are Americans just extra special?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      dutchman1951posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism and the protection of it, I think.
      
      Wish I knew a way to keep jobs and yet somehow adjust the system, not destroy it though. But yes, if it is not broke; IE Making Money, then do not fix it. You are correct.
      
      one thought, I have yet to see a bank vault follow a dead person into the ground!   so in the end...what happened!

      replyreport