What do you think that the city of San Francisco will not support the Sensenbrenner law if it passes?
341708
San Francisco will in no way support a law that is pro America.  "Anything anit-America" is San Francisco's credo.
882523
Not in NYC. If that was the case, drive through restaurants would not be in business for long..i.e. McDonalds, etc.\n\nS.T.
560211
Not true.  Those laws are controversial and apply only to specific localities.  Step outside that locality and you will be arrested.  In fact, the feds freely ignore those local and even state laws and arrest people and successfully convict them.  California is the only state to pass a law like this on the state level and the feds freely ignore it and arrest people.  Actually, they show great restraint in this.  They only arrest the 90% of people who fraudulently claim they are sick in an attempt to smoke pot recreationally.  They ignore the ones who are actually sick.
891615
It's being challenged on its housing restrictions. Most of the bill to length sentences for child molesters has already been signed into law. The authors have already backtracked and admitted that they made a mistake when they didn't write the initiative clearly enough not to apply retroactively. While that may fly in some states like New York, New Jersey, Iowa and Georgia, in California, it does not. We may not be a fully blue state but we're far from a red state. We take our constitutional rights seriously, and there are many pissed off people fighting this initiative in court. \n\nThe California Department of Corrections is also not real happy about the parolees not being able to live within 2000 feet of schools and parks. It is saying it might have to build housing at public expense to house them - something like $132 million to start. This in a state which already has a multi billion budget (the governor didn't solve the budget problem - he just borrowed the funds by floating bonds.)\n\nAlthough 70 oercent of voters cast yes votes on it, the courts frown on initiatives that are popular but unconstitutional. Another example was an initiative which banned all public services to illegal aliens in 1994. The public voted for it; the courts threw it out. \n\nI agree with the 2nd poster - it is time for the legislators to stop trying to legislate these kinds of laws. They only look like idiots, especially when they can't even write the initiatives right.\n\nAlso below is a link to a Los Angeles Times editorial against Proposition 83. \n\nhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-jessica12nov12,0,4249584.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
185386
It should be left up to the individual states to decide.  Gun control measures that might seem reasonable in New York or California would be much more impractical or burdensome in other states.
815297
Hopefully it's by each individual city.  Upholding the laws would be much easier if it was done per city instead of the whole country at once.  There should be a sweep of each city.  There should be checkpoints to get into each city, just like there is to cross the border.  Every business should be required to document every worker they are employing to the government and should be willing to spend some time in jail and lose their business license if they fail to comply.  If you have nothing to hide, then it won't be a problem going through checkpoints.  The government in each city should have control over the welfare and benefits programs available in that city.  They should pass laws that require proper identification and documentation to have access to these benefits.  I also think that any baby that is conceived by someone who is illegal should not be considered an American citizen. I think english should be made the official language, stop having options for spanish and subtitles in spanish.  I think this could solve a lot of problems, and keep illegals from having a reason to come here.  I have nothing against people speaking spanish but I feel they should keep that to their families and friends and away from the public.
1083602
Well, I think that if the citizens of San Francisco sit back and allow this, then they deserve what they are going to get which is a huge influx of illegal immigrants into their city and all of the costs and damages that go along with it such as overburdening of the school system, the health care system, the social services system, police/corrections, etc.  Then, I hope they won't expect the Federal Government to come to their financial aid to support all of their newly acquired citizens.  Just wait and see how much they like it when word spreads amongst all of the illegals that they can get shelter and hassle-free living in San Francisco!
744017
The scarlett letter license plates will not pass because there are those that hold high political offices or other esteemed jobs that have been caught for exactly that thing. Do you think that they want to drive around with a scarlett letter license plate? This is the only reason this bill has repeatedly been defeated. Now if it was just Joe Smoe who was getting busted for the DUI`s and not the senators, congressmen, etc, you bet it would pass.\n\nAs for Imani who answered before me, she`d better be glad she doesn`t live where I do, because that is exactly what one the judges in our county has people to do. I personally would think it is a deterrent and would think long and hard about doing something wrong if I had to do something like that. If you commit a crime you will be required to  pay society back one way or the other.
126819
^what he said, but expanded. \nIf it is a strong mayor form of government, then they will need mayoral approval. In a weak mayor form of government they will need a majority willing to vote for this parade.\nUnless there are statues/Home owner association type rules, in whcih case they will need those peoples assent as well.
27637
In my opinion we are going to see an ajustment depending upon location in the Bay Area. Sonoma County to the North is seeing demand for new housing.\n\nSan Francisco to San Jose is seeing increased inventory.\n\nThe bubble will not burst, however I beleive we will see some adjustments which are normal.
237643
Wow, thanks for the update.\n\nI am assuming you mean the California congress.\n\nIt is an interesting proposition, but the Constitution grants the United States Congress with the power to control Naturalization. \n\nIt would be interesting to see if it could be passed, that would definitely seem like a separation of powers issue between the federal and state government.\n\nBut, of course if you are talking about the Federal Congress, they would seem to have the power.\n\nTo be honest California is in a unique situation though, they have a huge illegal immigrant problem, and once the child is a citizen, the parents may claim a need to stay to raise child.  \n\nIs California becoming that overpopulated?  And even if that is the issue that doesn't deal with the failure to detect illegal immigrants, and that would seem to be the real issue there.
543992
Technically, its against the law; again, good luck fighting it. A similar case in my own santa barbara went through, from 86. They just last year acted on it. Supposedly things\nare better now, but guess what? People are still sleeping illegally on overcrowded floors.\nThe system is so corrupt its next to impossible to do anything about this stuff.
478250
Well I'm from the peoples republic of California and we don't enjoy such right to carry laws here...so I have a hard time relating.  I don't understand why a state like Texas tolerates an illegal resident period....I would think a good ole boy state like Texas would be rounding up anyone without a green card and shipping them south....
449107
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
98282
I believe Giuliani attempted to enforce it.  Mayors cannot create law.  That function goes to the city council and state assembly (or the federal government).  Jaywalking was part of Giuliani's attept to change the 'quality of life' in the city.  I recall that in one recent year, possibly after he left office, approximately 100 tickets were issued.  Also, it may not be an offense if you cross solely from one side of the street to the other using the shortest method possible (i.e. don't go diagonally).
886402
it would probably be a municipal law and not a state law
714332
That is the best thing I have heard in a long time. Unfortunately some nut ball leftist will try and have it overturned. Until every Town, City and State decides that Yes, we will obey the laws of the land and prosecute and penalize anyone that assists any criminal activity, we will continue to be infested with crime and leaches. I truly hope that we can end this criminalization of our civilized society (what's left of it) and then once again become the Proud Patriotic law abiding citizens that the great UNITED STATES OF AMERICA stands for.