Tapatalk

Sessions are over in Jeff City, But with what progress?

Sessions are over in Jeff City, But with what progress?

3,556
Life MemberLife Member
3,556

PostMay 17, 2008#1

Missouri Legislature ends session with a rush

By Tony Messenger

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Saturday, May. 17 2008



JEFFERSON CITY — Saving Gov. Matt Blunt's top priorities for the session's last

day, the Missouri Legislature on Friday passed bills that toughen laws on

immigrants and provide property tax reform across the state.



Lawmakers also enacted stricter stalking and harassment laws in response to

last year's suicide of a Dardenne Prairie teen. And setting the stage for an

expensive election year, lawmakers lifted caps on campaign contributions.



A dispute over a bill to repeal the so-called "village law" — which received

final passage early in the day after a bipartisan filibuster that lasted until

4 a.m. — got in the way of other controversial bills. Among the issues

lawmakers failed to address were voter photo ID, abortion and health insurance.



Lawmakers from both parties praised the immigration reform law sponsored by

Rep. Bob Onder, R-Lake Saint Louis, as a key accomplishment of the session.



The bill includes several provisions aimed at curbing illegal immigration,

including measures that crack down on employers who hire illegal workers.



Contimue Reading

PostMay 17, 2008#2

I personally feel like this session was politics as usually at the capitol. Nothing was done to improve the quality of life in St. Louis and a few of the bills rejected and passed just disgusted me.



Rejected Bills That Pissed Me Off




— St. Louis police: Gives the city of St. Louis control over its police force. (HB2117)



— Voter ID: Changes constitution to require photo identification to vote. (HJR48)



— Autism scholarships: Provides tax credits for contributing to scholarships for special-needs children to attend private schools. (HB1886)



— Teacher pay: Raises the minimum teacher salary to $31,000. (HB2040)



— Gambling: Places a moratorium on new casino licenses and repeals the $500 loss limit. (HB1929)



Passed Bills That Pissed Me Off



— Immigration: Bars illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits and getting drivers licenses. Imposes sanctions against employers who hire them unless they used an electronic verification system. Stops cities from harboring illegal immigrants. (HB1549)



— College scholarships: Increases funding for Access Missouri to $95 million, allowing aid to families with average adjusted gross incomes of about $102,000. (HB2003)

274
Full MemberFull Member
274

PostMay 17, 2008#3

Well at least Matt Blunt got everything accomplished that he wanted to

1,493
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,493

PostMay 17, 2008#4

kustramo wrote:Well at least Matt Blunt got everything accomplished that he wanted to
:lol:

508
Senior MemberSenior Member
508

PostMay 18, 2008#5

All in the name of progress...... or something

3,311
Life MemberLife Member
3,311

PostMay 19, 2008#6

Immigration: Bars illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits and getting drivers licenses. Imposes sanctions against employers who hire them unless they used an electronic verification system. Stops cities from harboring illegal immigrants.


why does this piss you off? why are ILLEGAL immigrants entitled to a drivers license and public benefits? I am very pro LEGAL immigration, I want St. Louis to be today's Ellis Island, open the flood gates, but how do people defend ILLEGAL immigration?

8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostMay 19, 2008#7

^ I agree completely Jcity... The scholarship bill looks great to me, I'm pleased to see it pass.

2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostMay 19, 2008#8

^^ Here, here!





Sincerely,

Proud to vote Republican



:)

710
Senior MemberSenior Member
710

PostMay 19, 2008#9

good to see they passed some funding for missouri amtrak...just kidding.



honestly i'd take it to kansas city a lot, and keep the money in state, instead i'm a lincoln service passenger quite a lot.

3,556
Life MemberLife Member
3,556

PostMay 19, 2008#10

JCity wrote:
Immigration: Bars illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits and getting drivers licenses. Imposes sanctions against employers who hire them unless they used an electronic verification system. Stops cities from harboring illegal immigrants.


why does this piss you off? why are ILLEGAL immigrants entitled to a drivers license and public benefits? I am very pro LEGAL immigration, I want St. Louis to be today's Ellis Island, open the flood gates, but how do people defend ILLEGAL immigration?


Because Republicans are usually anti-immigration of any kind and often have racial undertones. I'm not for illegal immigration either, but I don't like the xenophobic attitude a lot of Americans take towards different people. I also doubt St. Louis will be a Ellis Island anytime soon, because I'm sure the outstate politicians would have crushed that proposal in a second.

8,922
Life MemberLife Member
8,922

PostMay 19, 2008#11

goat314 wrote:
Because Republicans are usually anti-immigration of any kind and often have racial undertones. I'm not for illegal immigration either, but I don't like the xenophobic attitude a lot of Americans take towards different people. I also doubt St. Louis will be a Ellis Island anytime soon, because I'm sure the outstate politicians would have crushed that proposal in a second.


:lol: :roll: I don't see this thread lasting long.

3,556
Life MemberLife Member
3,556

PostMay 19, 2008#12

Moorlander wrote:^ I agree completely Jcity... The scholarship bill looks great to me, I'm pleased to see it pass.


The reason I'm against this is because it gives breaks to upper middle class people, but if you pass a school bond in the city of St. Louis by raising taxes then these people making a six figure income go screaming that were giving poor people "handouts". I'm also disappointed that they denied lifting the $500 loss limit that would have giving millions towards education, where the hell are they getting the money for bill this from?

PostMay 19, 2008#13

Moorlander wrote:
goat314 wrote:
Because Republicans are usually anti-immigration of any kind and often have racial undertones. I'm not for illegal immigration either, but I don't like the xenophobic attitude a lot of Americans take towards different people. I also doubt St. Louis will be a Ellis Island anytime soon, because I'm sure the outstate politicians would have crushed that proposal in a second.


:lol: :roll: I don't see this thread lasting long.


Just stating my opinion, he asked me what I thought and I told him. I appreciate different opinions, just don't have to agree with them.

6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostMay 19, 2008#14

Moorlander wrote:


:lol: :roll: I don't see this thread lasting long.


Probably not. I already fixed one rule violation in posting the entire article.

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMay 19, 2008#15

Immigration was only illegal after we got here, killed the native americans, and decided that Italians and Irish were ok {eventually}, but the Asians and Mexicans shouldn't be allowed.



Immigration, and why Chicanos come here, is a global issue. It's rather racist, and naive, to deny the immigrant service sector underclass the benefits and protections of citizenship. Your ancestors came over the same way, looking for a job, only they didn't have de jure legislation targeting them. Perhaps that's why they achieved the American Dream and why others have not? Regardless it's rather stupid to exclude Mexicans from society as giving them citizenship means they pay taxes. Moreover, denying them political incorporation only means they will remain an underclass. Want to get a good idea of why we don't need another underclass? Look to North St. Louis.



We need to politically incorporate Chicanos regardless if they broke the law. Many of these laws are simply political pandering to the nativist and ignorant voter who does not understand globalism. Mexicans are here to stay and we need them. It is most essential that we bring them into society, rather than exclude them from the benefits our ancestors were offered.



The nativist rhetoric and legislation is simply the result of politicians pandering to the ignorant American electorate who are far to intellectually lazy too understand that immigration is the result of global {US} policy. NAFTA, for example, has increased immigration to the United States. NAFTA drew agribusiness to Mexico and many subsistence farmers were driven off their land. Plus wages in the US are up to 80% higher while Mexico has around 25% underemployment, or cyclical unemployment. The incentive is to come to the United States. But try telling that to the average middle class moronic Republican voter who dislikes Mexicans but says Free Trade must be good!



The simple fact is that Mexicans are the biggest minority. That may scare the average white voter, but what scares me most is denying them the American Dream.

6,775
Life MemberLife Member
6,775

PostMay 19, 2008#16

Doug wrote:Immigration was only illegal after we got here, killed the native americans, and decided that Italians and Irish were ok {eventually}, but the Asians and Mexicans shouldn't be allowed.


What color is the sky in your world?

10K
AdministratorAdministrator
10K

PostMay 19, 2008#17

goat314 wrote:
Moorlander wrote:^ I agree completely Jcity... The scholarship bill looks great to me, I'm pleased to see it pass.


The reason I'm against this is because it gives breaks to upper middle class people, but if you pass a school bond in the city of St. Louis by raising taxes then these people making a six figure income go screaming that were giving poor people "handouts".


As crazy as it may sound, $100k doesn't go as far as it used to, especially considering the rising cost of college. I ran a college calculator to estimate how much I should be saving for my daughter's future college tuition, and it is insane how much it will cost in 18 years.



Count me in with Jcity and Moorlander on the scholarships and illegal immigrant bills.

72
New MemberNew Member
72

PostMay 20, 2008#18

I do not know how people do not understand the term "ILLEGAL" immigration. Granted, the majority of the blame should be placed on those organizations that hire these individuals, our government has definitely sh*t the bed when it comes to this issue. It seems now that there is no real solution, only politicians spiting their unoriginal party lines about the subject (Republicans: anyone who does not look like me is bad, so stop these Mexicans from invading our country; Democrats: let's allow anyone to come here regardless of their legality; screw our existing laws because now that we have courted this segment of the population, they will vote for us in the future). While this is obviously a simplification of the issue, it is how I believe many politicians and their constituents view the topic. Full disclosure: I am a fairly left-leaning person, but sway more right on this issue. My grandparents are immigrants from Central America and they had to wait their turn to come to this country, as did their siblings and other family members and countless more. In addition, I have a friend from Colombia who is attempting to legally immigrate to this country but has been routinely denied. In a recent phone call, I jokingly told him to fly to Tijuana and then cross illegally because it would be easier. The real crime here is not usually committed by those who come here illegally but to those individuals. Their government (in Mexico, at least) encourages their departure from their homes in order to create a country that continues to cater to the needs of the wealthiest citizens. The U.S. essentially acts as a pressure valve, allowing Mexico to escape the possibility of an uprising of a very large poor class by letting those citizens come here and demand the rights they would not dare demand at home. It's a shame.

2,772
Life MemberLife Member
2,772

PostMay 21, 2008#19

You hit me right on the head; anyone who does not look like me is bad, so stop these Mexicans from invading our country!



Wow! It's almost like I typed it!

3,785
Life MemberLife Member
3,785

PostMay 21, 2008#20

Before the Treaty of Guadulpe Hidalgo and the annexation of Texas, most of this land was owned by Mexico. Moreover, many Mexican landowners, after annexation, were driven off their land by Anglos. The economic underdevelopment which partially drives immigration to the US is party due to US policy.