Mr. President -- Can't We At Least Read It First This Time

I am more than willing to listen to the details...I just didn't hear any. I sat there like a little bird with my beak open waiting for someone to drop in a worm...no worms, no bread crumbs, no seeds...nothing..

how many friggin times did he say "pass this bill?"...He's already passed the cost of his plan to the next three generations...why "pass" MORE? The first stimulus pep rally was about the same as this one... this was a DUD, as you alluded to so eloquently, mereliz.

If you want the details, go to whitehouse.gov.

beaz-435179

I've been to Whitehouse.gov many times. Guess what? They change/modify the bills all the time, after the bills have been passed but then, guess what, the bureaucrats get their hands on it.

My point is, can't any administration THOROUGHLY announce a bill that is understandable by the citizens and business's when announced? Another example: do You understand the changing tax code every year?

Why sell a 'bill of goods' to the public when it hasn't been finalized or completed?

Respect, Leiya

leiya

Most of the tax code changes occur on the corporate side, so most of them you wouldn't need to know about unless you run a company. As for those changes, our accounting company gives us a summary of all the tax changes that occur that impact our company. The language of those tax changes is easy enough to read, but sometimes the references that are stated can make things confusing. THis is required because otherwise you will end up with far more inconsistencies than what are present in the tax code now.

For example.

The items as specified in subsection IV paragraph a) shall no longer be eligible for tax credit as specified in appendix b, section 5, subsection c paragraph 4.

That is the kind of language in the tax code (though not specific). This is much more preferential because it allows changes to the tax code to adapt to different situations to be made much faster with far fewer errors.

Now the question of what is applicable to you. That is far more complicated and it requires someone who is familiar with your business and the tax code. That is something the average person will never be privy to, because there is no reason why you should have access to the details of my business.

As to the bills themselves, there is sometimes a bill summary that wouldn't be the law itself, but a summary of that law. But that isn't what people want though. They want a bill that is written in plain english rather than legalese but that is not possible. The english language isn't precise enough for that purpose. Maybe if esperanto was the language of the land it would be a different matter, but it isn't.

Jonathan-2055273 says:

"They want a bill that is written in plain english rather than legalese but that is not possible."

You're absolutely right!

I have a brother who owns a law firm. He sometimes speaks in legalese (we laugh). We all ponder what he's trying to make a point of. But You know what? It only takes him a second to catch himself and speak 'plain', understandable English.

'Legalese' can be explained coherently and understandably, -if 'They' really wanted to.

Thanks for Your post!

leiya123

All it would take is for every bill to have a summary document that outlines the bill, but is not law. This document would have to be written in the first place because that would be used as an outline for the bill itself. I am not sure if this is done as a matter of process (making that available) but it would be a good idea, because then the people can become involved without having to wade through 2000 pages of legalese.

The problem right now may be that this summary document is not back changed when the actual implementation law is created, but I don't see this as a bad idea, I actually see it as a good idea.

This summary document could also be used as something akin to an index to the actual bill so that if someone was interested in the implementation, they could read it first in the summary and go to the relevant section of the detailed implementation bill.

As an engineer, the documents that I write, the summary document is actually often far more important than the detailed documents, not because the details aren't important, but the summary document gives everyone an idea of what the objectives are, and only the people actually implementing the design need to read the detailed design documents.

Jonathan-2055273

Bingo! On everything you said! As a very sucessful MIS director for multiple data centers and a print center, clarity is of the utmost when publishing a decree, memo, correspondence, or email, etc.

You nailed it!

Respect, and regards.

Leiya

The government can't produce jobs, without destroying others with higher taxes.

Only the private sector can get us out.

Taxed enough already.

Stop looking for a free lunch.

Jbird,

See my comment above.

Regards,

Mike

j-bird-2923980

Yeah super conservatives have no ideas,

Do you have any? Put your money where your mouth is.

they have failed to put forth legislation that will increase employment.

So have the democrats! So that makes us even! Or maybe not!

When asked to extend stimulus money to attack a failing infrastructure...Republicans said no,

Of course they said no! Our grandchildren are in enough debt as it is! Throwing money in an empty well is not productive.

if brains were gas baggers couldnt get a motor scooter round a cheerio!

If they took all the democrats brains and piled them into a pyramid and balanced it on the sharp edge of a razorblade it would resemble a BB in the middle of an eight lane freeway!

There, now we're even!

The speech was a campaign speech.

That was my impression as well

I agree--I kept listening and all I heard was the same empty promises of '08. No more.

OR... Man who speaks many words loudly has a hearing problem!

ET-ism....Man who constantly repeats himself has a memory problem!

Man who refuses to listen and repeats the same mistakes of the past is brain damaged!

Man who refuses to listen and repeats the same mistakes of the past is brain damaged!

Come on all of the conservatives in Congress could not be brain damaged could they?

maybe they bought too many sets of Direct Sound EX29 Extreme Isolation headphones.

Republicans and democrats are brain damaged! Why do you think were in the situation that we are in now?

I actually know why our government plays games with us but I cannot repeat it, it is classified information. You wouldn't believe it anyway! And it is too complicated to try to explain here. It has a lot to do with my namesake. If you do some research on the Internet, look in the right places, you will not find a site in the United States, but you will find them from foreign contributors. And I'm not talking about Wikileaks. That site is just a diversionary tactic from what is really going on. Conspiracies are started from some basis in truth, it is up to us to determine if the conspiracy is true or not based on the evidence presented. Wikileaks only gives out information that the government's wanted them to leak in the first place to distract the world's citizens from what is really happening. The new world order has something to do with it. Actually it has something to do with the new world order!

That is all I am going to say on that subject, the rest is up to you!

Ok Paul

Who's Paul? you talkin' bout' PWT? don't insult me by associating me with him!

Nobody is going to see the bill before it is passed. That's the way the game is played. Even if it is displayed, they won't tell you where it is to make it easy like advertise it on national television! And by the time you find it, it will already have been voted on! So much for transparency!

Paul is the name of the Alien in the Movie that is oddly enough, called 'Paul'.

Damn!..... OWL! you are the only one capable of figuring it out!!!!

Your namesake is very fitting! you truly ARE wise! :-]

Jonathan-2055273

Paul is the name of the Alien in the Movie that is oddly enough, called 'Paul'.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3516832537/

Oh! that's ok then!! Haven't seen that yet! that was my cousin! He is such a showoff!!

Author and de-programmer Fritz Springmeier (The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines ) says that most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics. "Slides", Springmeier reports, is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" often solicits a slide response with many people. (Springmeier has co-authored three books on trauma-based programming which detail how the Illuminati employs highly tuned and extrememly sophisticated Mind Control (MC) training programs that begin the programming process while the intended victim is still within the womb. Mind Control is a much greater problem than most people realize. According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S.

Paul seems like a kick @ss movie by the trailer. I may have to check that one out.

What most Americans believe to be "Public Opinion" is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public's acceptance of the Illuminati's planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is "taking", while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or "tweak" the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 'think tanks' such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.

Well, this explains why Liberal Democrats think the way they do.

What they don't realize, are they are going to be the first ones starved, and gotten rid of.

Good luck to ya.

I told these fuQin idiot Lib's to stop supporting their Government's agenda to disarm Americans. You dumbsh!ts.

Interresting post #5.17!

You know your stuff! But I think we have fallen off the rails a little. My bad! not yours! :-] Free thinkers are the ones who seem to be immune to the propaganda machine so to speak!

They are the ones that demand to see the bill before it becomes a law! I am one of those!

The "others" will not put up a fuss except to berate the ones that do!

Exactly.

I notice a lot of stuff this Government has been doing without any regards to public opinion and right under the noses of Americans. Seems to be working out real well for them if you ask me. If I disappear for saying out loud, you know why.

what? and the stuff that the bush administration did under the peoples noses (which was far worse than anything that the Obama administration has done) is acceptable?

Jonathan-2055273

I don't know what you mean by Bush being far worse than Obama, especially since Obama has been continuing the Bush era policies! Aside from the fact that Obama has broken his promises as most politicians usually do so that is a given, Obama has lied to the American people as well as trying to push his socialist agenda slowly circumventing our constitution! Look at the immigration law he put into place just recently! He circumvented Congress which is an abuse of power! And that's not the first time he has done that, and more than likely won't be the last! Most of the trouble started when Clinton signed NAFTA! And it has gotten worse ever since. Both parties are at fault. But Obama promised change! Change for the worst is not what we thought he meant!

Damd ET, you beat me to it on Jonathan-2055273.

"We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."

My last post on that topic owlsview. Sorry for the off topic. They can figure out the rest on their own.

extra

You think that Obama enacted a new law with regards to immigration? he did not.

This is what happened.

The system has an ability to process X number of deportations every year (and yes, everyone is entitled to due process).

The number of people in the system to be deported is significantly greater than X

What Obama stated is that because we cannot deport more than X per given time period, (because the republicans won't stop blocking judge appointments for one reason, so the courts are understaffed and there also just aren't enough courts as another) we are going to perform something that is akin to triage on the immigration system. That is the ones that we really need to get out, the violent criminals, we will push harder to get them out.

Now, that does not involve passing a new law, it is basically accepting the fact that there just isn't enough resources to process the number of people in the system.

Now if you had any other ideas as to how to increase the number that the system can process without violating a persons constitutional rights, then please feel free to discuss them (though it might be off topic here).

Again, what Obama did there is he stated how he was going to best meet the intent of the existing law, he did not change the law, he did not create new law.

and if you do come up with an idea, it must meet the two following conditions.

1) not violate the constitutional rights of the person
2) work within the current resources, or have congress authorize more resource.

Jonathan-2055273 #5.27 -

Now if you had any other ideas as to how to increase the number that the system can process without violating a persons constitutional rights.

If they are illegal, they don't have protection under the Constitution.

Problem solved.

a judge can process millions an hour with a 5 minute hearing to be sure, you have proper id, ok what country you want to get sent to, thank you next.

A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."

I think America was founded as a result of governments that impose on it people "sacrifices." Sacrifices are made willingly, otherwise imposed they would be called acts of tyranny.

Sacrifices are made willingly, otherwise imposed they would be called acts of tyranny.

Exactly Fla Pat #5.30 -

Damn!..P0liticlyInc0rec! you beat me to it this time! but I will elaborate......

The amount of judges does not matter! If people are here illegally they should be automatically deported regardless. The fact that they are here illegally is a crime! Not counting the amount of fraud they are responsible for! Obama did enact an executive order bypassing Congress. The governor of California is ignoring Obamas mandate and deporting illegals as they are apprehended regardless of their criminal or non criminal background according to constitutional laws. Illegal immigration is another form of invasion!

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note

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.

The people have spoken! But Obama doesn't listen!

And a very fine elaboration it was ET.

"A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins!" Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin was a very smart man in every aspect of his life Fla Pat. Did you know that?

politically incorrect.

Actually they do have the right to due process, INCLUDING the determination of whether they are legal.

So unless you want to just throw everyone out, citizens and all, exactly how are you going to make the determination that they are in fact an illegal alien or not?

You guys really don't seem to understand what it is to have the right of due process don't you. That is a fundamental NATURAL right due to ALL persons, whether they are or are not citizens.

And seriously, the day that the US removes the right of habeus corpus from anyone, regardless of status, is the day I close up my company and leave. Seriously. Do you even have any idea as to what it is you are saying? That one of the fundamental rights accorded to ALL persons in the constitution can just be taken away? I realize that this is the extreme, but that is how things started with jews in Nazi Germany.

It is a VERY slippery slope that you are walking on.

(oh and by the way, Obama would also have to introduce a new law to do exactly what you suggest so for him to do that, he would have to commit the action that you accuse him of).

That is not correct, it is a misconception that everybody makes. Illegal immigration is the another form of invasion. And it falls under constitutional law. No citizens will be deported because citizens have proof of citizenship whereas illegals do not. Immediate deportation is not a violation of due process. There is no process required for people who are here illegally. The rights of the citizens take precedent even over the government. Notice the amendment refers to citizens! Not noncitizens!

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By the meaning of any persons does not mean illegals. It is talking about citizens of other states that happened to be in the jurisdiction of the state's they are not a resident in!

extraterrestrial.

Then I suggest you take it to court and state that certain people do not have those constitutional rights.

And an invasion is one that is sponsored by a nation.

Look I am not saying that the illegal immigration problem is not serious, it is, but the solution isn't to strip people of their constitutional rights. (you at least have to go through the process to determine if they actually are illegal immigrants, because if you don't do that, then you are going to deport people that are citizens).

And the 14th amendment does not determine whether or not people have rights, it determines whether a person has the rights of a citizen, which means the right to vote, the right to hold office, etc... Back when the 14th amendment was passed (after the civil war), there was no such thing as illegal immigration. There were very few laws to speak of. The concept of illegal immigration is a post WWII situation when the federal government clamped down on open immigration.

You cannot strip the rights from someone who never had them to begin with! Therein lies the flaw of the 14th amendment. We did not have an illegal alien invasion problem so the 14th amendment needs to be RE amended to bring it up to to date. But Congress keeps dragging their feet and Obama doesn't want them to leave. There have been many instances of illegal immigrants with false identifications voting in our elections! Is very prevalent in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Not only do they vote once but several times at different polling stations using different IDs. Which is another criminal act. They go around in buses from place to place. And nobody is willing to stop them. And it even gets worse.

Jonathan-2055273

I have documentation that I belong here in this Country legally, so do you, so does everyone that does belong here legally. If you are here illegally, you have no rights afforded to you under our Constitution or Bill Of Rights. The fact that you would and are condoning the breaking of our laws is disturbing.

The only reason it is harder to get them out of this Country than it should be, is because we have a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals in this Country that make it more difficult than it has to be, and want to do anything to get more votes and make the Country a welfare State dependant on Government. I just happen to not want that, and like my Independence.

I am in the utmost of the first persons that will fight for our human rights, But I will not stand for the rights of someone that chooses to break our laws in order to obtain or be afforded those rights. I am married to an Immigrant, and we did it legally, and so do they (period).

If you are here illegally, you need to jump on the bus with them. Why should every other Country out there have to follow the laws of Immigration to get into this Country but Mexico? If that Country has it so bad because their Government is so mismanaged, and so corrupt that they can not support growth for their people, then the people need to stand up to that Government, just like other Countryman have to do in their Country.

Why should the people of Libya have to stand up to their Government and fight, but not Mexico? Oh, I know, because they can come here illegally, and bring votes to the bleeding heart Liberals. Libyans can't, so fuQ them guys.

Benjamin Franklin was a very smart man

And one of my favorite quotes by him:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

politically

And EVERY PERSON has the right to the DUE PROCESS to make that determination. That requires a process that includes a session in front of a judge, as well as a right to appeal. But by saying that an illegal has no rights does not distinguish between the two because it is stating that a person does not have that right to make that determination in a legal setting.

Jonathan-2055273

I'll say it again since you seem to keep skipping over this fact. I have documentation that I belong here in this Country legally, so does everyone that does belong here legally. If I am stopped by the police in the first place, I can prove that fact, and wouldn't need to be in a position to need "DUE PROCESS to make that determination." If I did not have that evidence on hand, it would and could be quickly rectified, and would not assist in creating a back log in the system.

Your efforts and your excuse, aid and abed the situation, and your fight is very weak, and is one of the reasons it is more difficult than it needs to be in order to remedy the problem. You have created and worsened the problem yourself, by creating the backlog in not following and enforcing the Immigration laws that are already in place.

You have also further validated the theory, that there must be an ulterior motive to why it is in the first place there is a fight for illegals to remain in this Country illegally. If you are here illegally, you have no rights afforded to you under this Country's Constitution or Bill Of Rights or in order to prolong your stay at the cost of the legal tax payer's dollars.

Those rights are set in place for legal residents and citizens of this Country alone, since America has no legal jurisdiction to make laws pertaining to outside of it's borders or beyond the scope of protecting it's legal residents and citizens. The fact that you would continue condoning the breaking of our laws in a quest to protect such persons again leads people to believe that there must be an ulterior motive in doing so.

Again, the only reason it is harder to get them out of this Country than it should be, is because we have a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals in this Country that make it more difficult than it has to be, and want to do anything to get more votes to assist in the making of a welfare State dependant on Government help. Again, I just happen to not want that, and like my Independence of Government control, and the thought that I need Government to survive in life.

Fla Pat #5.40 -

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Yes, it does seem very fitting to our situation in life even today.

politically

and I will say this again because YOU keep missing the point. That documentation is 100% useless if you do NOT have Due Process to ensure that a) you do have that documentation and b) that the documentation is valid and c) that the documentation was legally acquired.

THAT IS DUE PROCESS.

Staying in the country is not due process, going through the legal process to ensure that you can stay in the country or not IS DUE PROCESS.

Is there something about that which is all that difficult to understand? Really it isn't that difficult a concept.

Ahh, excuse me sir! Can I see your papers? No speak English? Identification por favor!.... These are counterfeit! Get on the bus!

Now was that so hard! After all that is a form of due process!

If you are stopped by police while driving, and do not have your license with you, it can still be on the spot verified that you do have a license. You are not needed to go jam up the system to verify it or whether it is valid or legally acquired.

My Wife is a legal Immigrant in this Country. If she dose not have her Permanent resident card or drivers license with her, it can be verified on the spot, and would not create a back log, nor violate her rights. You do not require any due process other then the fact of the officer verifying it on the spot.

You can circle talk all you want about DUE PROCESS, and what is entails. But the reality is, that you yourself are making it harder than it has to be by creating the problem. There are laws in this Country for a reason. I am not saying that I agree with all of them. But the fact that I don't believe in them, does not afford me the right to forgo them without consequence.

Also, my wife as all are supposed to, had legal papers to enter this Country before she came in the first place. She did not come to this Country illegally, and then apply for them papers to stay. That is the right you are fighting for. The right to fight for legal Immigration after the fact and stay while you do it the way you should have done it before you came.

So your fight is baseless, and has an ulterior motive, or is just fueled by ignorance of the Immigration procedures of this Country. Educate yourself on something before you seek a mission in life to fight for a cause you know nothing about apparently.

extraterrestrial:

You get stopped, oh sir, you can't prove you didn't murder that person over there, oh well too bad, off to jail you go, no appeal, no trial, no nothing.

THAT is due process. Another part enshrined in the law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So as I have said several times, if you want to actually remove those FUNDAMENTAL rights from persons, then I guess your constitution isn't worth the paper its written on.

and politically, if your wife didn't have her papers on her, and she was stopped, would you want her just to be shipped over the border without due process? You would be mighty fracking pissed off if she was not afforded the due process.

And before you lecture me, you really need to take a few lessons in your own constitution, you should educate yourself. For you to say that something that is WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, albeit in a different language, is not important is about as ignorant as they come. YOU are the one that needs to be educated.

I am tired of circular arguments with people that have no clue.

You are both on ignore.

and politically, if your wife didn't have her papers on her, and she was stopped, would you want her just to be shipped over the border without due process? You would be mighty fracking pissed off if she was not afforded the due process.

I am tired of circular arguments with people that have no clue.

You are both on ignore.

#5.48 - Jonathan-2055273

Lol. Tipicle Liberal idiocy.

My Wife is a legal Immigrant in this Country. If she dose not have her Permanent resident card or drivers license with her, it can be verified on the spot, and would not create a back log, nor violate her rights. You do not require any due process other then the fact of the officer verifying it on the spot.

That is why your points are baseless. If she was stopped, they can verify it, that she is here legally, and therefore she wouldn't just to be shipped over the border in the first place. The right to fight for legal Immigration after the fact, and stay while you do it, is no excuse or rectification for breaking the law in the fist place and resolving the way you should have done it before you came. Once again, the Liberals put the cart before the horse, and continue to enjoy the wearing of blinders to ignore the facts.

I am legally in this country, yet my visa CANNOT be validated immediately. I have a drivers license, but the determination of whether I have that license legally CANNOT be validated immediately. WHy not? because my visa expires and is just a very clonable stamp in my passport. So yes my points ARE valid.

Homeland security, the issuing agency of that visa, is open 24 hrs and accessible through all law enforcement agencies in this Country soon after 9/11. So yes your points ARE invalid.

What your implying is your physical passport or visa is the proof you need to prove you are here legally. That is not true. If it were the case, you could be kicked out of the Country simply for losing it. That's why passports scan now. They do not have to manually be typed into the system to corroborate why you are in the Country, or whether you are here legally. It is done every time you cross a US border, whether you are coming or going.

politicallyincorrect.

No they are not invalid,

due process is due process. You can't just take a judicial review out of that process. Are there ways to make that process more efficient, yes, but removing a part of that process that is GUARANTEED by the constitution is NOT the way.

A cop is not a judge, a cop is NOT an impartial party, a cop DOES NOT KNOW ALL ASPECTS OF THE LAW.

That is why you need the due process.

So I guess next time that an american is charged with something in another country, even if they didn't commit it, you would be ok with just locking them up for the rest of their lives without trial, because alas, they don't have any rights? (yes that is an extreme, but that is what you are leading up to).

What you are talking about is NOT the country that people have tried to respect over many generations.

Now I suggest you go talk to a lawyer about what the right of due process actually means, because YOU are clueless about it.

(and yes, the moment that your attitudes become law, is the moment that I just close up my company and leave. That is NOT the country that I want to be in).

And by the way. The trick is to have one, and have one legally in the first place before entering the Country to avoid question. The people that are going to raise question, are the ones that came into the Country other than a border check point. Like under or over a fence, or in a trunk or hidden through some means of transport of illegally entering. I've been involved in this a little over 5 years now. So, I know the procedures because I have to for mine and my wife's sake. So, stop making excuses for breaking the law, and avoiding reality of the process, and deal with it. Again your comparing apples and oranges, and it's not valid.

Jonathan

Your analogy about the person being stopped for murder is way off base to what we are talking about! Since you are obviously not a U.S. citizen what makes you think you know better than those of us that have been born here do? And like you say they can clone a passport stamp! How many times has your passport been stamped illegally? Since you admitted to knowledge of it leads me to understand why you are arguing this point! Does this mean that when your visa expires you are not going to leave? That would make you an illegal and you are not entitled to any due process! You are guilty just by your presence here! So I take it you are going to try for Obamas amnesty when you're welcome here has ran out. That makes you part of the problem.

That was kinda my thought also, since he seems to be avoiding the point of being and staying legal in the first place before entering the Country, and not having to fight for legal Immigration afterwards. If that is the case, it may be that he is in hopes of taking advantage of this amnesty garb, so he can stay here while he fights for the right to stay here, rather then to do it the way the laws are set up in the first place. That would explain the mentality of the fact he would and is condoning the breaking of our laws regarding Immigration. You know you can never get a straight answer from a Liberal, so, who knows the truth?

I do find it a little irritating that a foreigner would be trying to dictate their interpretation of American law!

Perhaps he is one of those visa holders who think they have diplomatic immunity.

But I do find it strange that he knows about false documentation! Perhaps he's had a little practice at it!

hey i have no groups or what nots, i think i might have 3 maybe 4 friends.

i like to get involved in some descussions. i read more than i type. dont care to get anymore involved than that.

owls:

My industry is the space industry, as far as the soph followers, I don't add friends, never have, probably never will. They add me, I accept, done deal. I have no control over who wants to add me, and I have no clue what it really does other than allow to track articles we have posted to.

I didn't write the articles, I just linked to them, that is it.

If you want the mods to look into me, well they can and they have. Unique email address, etc...

As to the length of time I have been a member, who cares, I didn't do anything for a really long time.

But hey, if you want to ignore me, I don't really care. No skin off my back.

As for groups, as jester stated, I really don't care to get involved in them. Didn't know that there was some rule that you had to. Hey I can join some (and then ignore them afterwards) if that makes you happy.

King,

if someone sends me an FR, I accept, I really don't care who wants to follow my posts and that is all that I see that it does.

Extraterrestrial

I do find it a little irritating that a foreigner would be trying to dictate their interpretation of American law!

Perhaps he is one of those visa holders who think they have diplomatic immunity.

But I do find it strange that he knows about false documentation! Perhaps he's had a little practice at it!

• #5.57 -

I just think he may be a little uneducated or confused regarding the laws of what we "can do" here in the US vs what we "are doing", and who our rights are supposed to protect as far as legal procedures go. I thought we just went through this with Abu Ghraib, and the prisoners there thinking they had the same rights as Americans beyond the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. (Not that they were followed)

Jonathan-2055273

Hmmmmm, For someone who says he has no control of friends you seem to have acquired quite a few! Some of them are not a very savory bunch from my experiences. But to each their own! Besides you don't always have to hit the accept button!

WOW! This seed just got really weird. So, who's the Grand Dragon?

lol. I'll do it, I'll do it Tim.

I've followed this seed since it started. It's been kind of bizzare from the start, but comments 5.54 - 5.58 & 5.61 sound kind of like I accidentally walked into a KKK meeting, or maybe a John Grisham novel.

I'm on the edge of my chair waiting to see if someone is going to go fetch a rope and teach that foreigner a lesson.

Lol. Just a disagreement on whether illegals and citizens are or should be afforded the same rights and protections. No lynching ropes yet.

No need for the rope Tim. So don't get your hopes up. This has nothing to do with race. so leave out the racial retoric. Thank you.

Lol.. ET..

Yep, I read it all and voted up all of Jonathan's comments... looked like he could use some help. :)

But mostly because The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is quite clear:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Citizen or not, they get that right.

Why you wanna come bust my bubble Tim? Lol.. Well, they still need to do something other then pandering to the problem. Start convicting some of these people for hiring them or something. I'm out for now, chat ya guys later. gotta work soon.

Now there's an idea I've been behind for years. Arrest the people that hire illegals. Give them jail time, not just fines.

Arizona passed a law years ago, under the Democratic governor we had then, to do just that. But guess what? It's never been enforced because the Chamber of Commerce likes cheap labor.

So now we have one group here that wants to round up the illegals and put them in private prisons for profit, and another group that wants to round them up and have them trim their bushes.

The citizens just want them to leave, but that's not going to happen as long as those in power can make a buck.

Here is a little tidbit of knowledge that you need to read Jonathan!

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/invade.htm

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2010/05/mexican-american-presidents-assault-on.html

http://americanpolicy.org/immigration/the-outrages-of-the-mexican-invasion.html/

By his refusal to ship out all of the illegals, he is a allowing a foreign invasion to occur!

According to the constitution president Obama has violated his oath of office!

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. The act granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants.

So, your point is...?

He shouldn't have?

Should he have?

He Absolutely shouldn't have! That sets a precedent! That is why we have been getting overrun with illegals, they figure if they can stay here for a few years they will become legal! And that is what Obama is trying to do as well! Amnesty!

So the point is two wrongs don't make a right!

i agree, reagan should not of passed it, it was an attempt at fixing some of the illegal criminal problem and it failed. so should we try it again. heck no.

You have wax in one ear and finger in the other.

What the hell kind of debate is it when the participants agree not to argue...Duh..

I like Newt because he can articulate positions well...he just shoots himself in the foot all the time though, dang it!!

TGB: don't beat yourself up... To err is human. To forgive yourself and move forward from your mistake, that's called learning!

Something Obama hasn't done in 3 years, now...

owls: amazingly--no. I went third-party and got plenty of flak for it.

But, I'd rather do third party if I find no one in the conservative aisle that I like. And that's been happening for a few years now. The last man I honestly voted for? Clinton. I've voted independent every single election since, and I don't regret that choice at all.

Obama did NOT release the speech to the Republicans in advance. Aside from being childish it was classically unprofessional. This is one of the reasons the Republicans did not tape a reply. They didn't read it. Besides, there was NOTHING in it. Just campaign rhetoric hope and crap. No details, period.

I guess that is why the speaker just threw his copy down on the desk and did not open it ??? So tell me where did all the Republican rhetoric come from the last few days...oh ya their battle cry is IMOA.

Besides I thought most of the Republicans can speak live and don't need to prerecord their comments...

Good, now get your panties out of knots so you can breath while reading !

So, have you already read the bill and disagree with it.

Or, without having read it, you just disagree?

Sorry sir, but you have already proven that you are not capable of meeting your responsibilities. Now we must meet ours and dismiss you.

Sorry owl, I must disagree with you and most of your friends here.

In the coming days we shall see if the proposed bill is good for the American people or not, but on principle, I agree with the President. Even though I think he's a closet Republican.

The American people deserve better than their detractors, conservatives in general and this congress specifically, has given them.

Even though I think he's a closet Republican.

The President belongs to his own party, the re elect President Obama party, say anything just like every other politician. As far as waiting to see if his proposal is good for the country, there was not a single new idea in his proposal, so why do we need to see if it is good in a few days? Of course Republicans dont have any better ideas, no one has ever been able to control the business cycle, tweak yes, control no. Safety nets, fine, control growth, job creation, all temporary. Of course if the President and Congress did nothing, no one would vote for them, of course that might be a good thing:)

owlsview

re:9.1

The bill itself is not yet written, the plan is what will be sent over, the bill will need to be drafted by multiple committees and approved in committee and then brought together in a single piece of legislation or as separate bills for votes.

That is how things get done in the House my friend, the committees will not be left out of this process.

The plan presented by Obama may become law or parts of it at least or there may be changes ot the things he proposed.

Anyone who thinks there will be a vote the day he sends the details of his plan over are insane.

but the president said they need to vote for this plan. that its already paid for and what not. if it isnt written yet how can they have his plan to vote on, if they havent gotten all the numbers how do they know its paid for already. see these are things that his speech didnt cover. he gave a great campaign speech. good on principle, short on ideas and details.

king jester

You are very wise and discerning and have nailed the crux of the matter

Another question is..... Is the bill going to be posted public for a week before anybody is allowed to vote on it? Or is it going to be shoved down our throats without full disclosure like Obama Care?

I have a question...if it is so extremely urgent that this bill be passed...IMMEDIATELY...then why has it taken until now to propose it? Nothing earthshakingly new, (at least not that I heard, all I heard was a pep rally and the same old "you need to spend more of your money to create jobs...although we aren't going to call it a stimulus this time")...so...why wait until now? Why not before he went on vacation? Why not earlier this year? Why the sudden rush when he was supposed to have been "focusing like a laser" on jobs since his election?

yes they must pass this bill now. well as soon as someone writes his bill. see all the president had was a campaign speech. someone still needs to write the bill so they can pass it now.

And what about transparency? When is the public allowed to view this bill online for five days before any voting occurs? Sounds to me like he is trying to rush it through before anybody is aware of the hidden clauses and other laws piggybacking on the bill that is detrimental to America. The only thing transparent about our government is Obama himself! We can see the right through him!

merleliz

You are correct

Nothing new here, new labels, tags and rhetoric on old ideas

And there is no rushing this process, it will be debated, amended and massaged so of it will pass and some of it will not.

If this comes as a take it or leave all in one bill it will not pass; there will be a lot of changes and deals made before the AJA or a combination of bills are passed.

Robert. Just like Obama Care! It took minutes and minutes of in-depth debate to get that one passed even though 60% of Americans did not want it.

More than likely that is how this bill will get pushed through as well.

The Senate Dems should stop blocking cut cap and balance.

Then Obama should sign it.

If they care about the people.

You think ?

Just how much of what ever comes out of this congress for the President to sign ?

Everyone wants to blame the president, congress needs to give him something to veto so they can blame him....

Fred.....tell me. Which specific detail in this speech would you 'make something out of". Hello, there were NO SPECIFIC DETAILS. Duh!

The speech was a brief of a plan, it is like all other speeches I have heard. The purpose is to get something started. Which by the way no one has done. Congress makes the law ...not the president. He did suggest how things could be paid for. As far as details why bother when it is just an outline that will be picked apart over and over again. Then if anything is passed we the people will just have to put up with the final version if there is such a thing. WE all must remember that they are all campaigning. when your Representative says Hi to you on the street he is campaigning to make the other guy look bad. The biggest smile and the most bull@!$%# get the votes. It is idiot person who thinks a person running for, or as President can keep any campaign promise without congress to support him.

Fred.....tell me. Which specific detail in this speech would you 'make something out of". Hello, there were NO SPECIFIC DETAILS. Duh

Why do I get the feeling that had Pres Obama given details, AngusD would be complaining about how long the Pres spoke - since giving details would've made the speech pretty darn long.

Hence, AngusD, the reason for just giving an outline.

This speech, 4 months in the making was billed as a 'job's plan'. NOT an outline.

This man gives outlines every 5 days. So what?

Leaders give plans, community organizers give outlines and lectures. Kid Rock was far more entertaining.

This speech, 4 months in the making was billed as a 'job's plan'. NOT an outline.

What did you want him to do, read the entire proposal? A speech is meant to give the broad points and explain the necessity. The actual plan will be given to Congress in a document form, and made available publicly through various dot-gov resources.

Seriously, a Democrat enters the White House and it's like you all forget how this stuff works.

Steve

But they cannot "pass it right away" if all they have is the outline without the details do you agree?

A lot of us understand exactly how it works

This is not a bill, it is a group of ideas that will be turned into multiple bills by multiple committee chair persons in both chambers and then it will be debated and amended and debated and passed back and forth between the House and the Senate

And then maybe it will be passed right away

That is how the process will work and the way it has always worked

True, so what was your complaint again?

And how long would it take you to read such a document.....just askin

But they cannot "pass it right away" if all they have is the outline without the details do you agree?

I would presume the details will be given to Congress first thing in the morning, and I doubt "right away" meant "tomorrow." Seriously, guys, he was stressing urgency and timeliness. That's not the same thing as pushing for it to be done before the ink has dried. The reactions to this are bordering on hysteria.

I agree Steve, It seems some one who gives his opinion in the vine is fair game for the hysteria, kind of reminds me of asking the wife what we need from the store when she is PMSing.

Steve, his passionate plea for immediacy border-lined on hysteria

I'm sorry, owl, I just don't see how stressing urgency of an important bill with a historically slow-footed Congress means he's pushing for it to be done faster than people get a chance to read it. You're making a lot of presumptions here.

steve watts

To call this congress slow footed is an insult to all the slow footed organizations on the planet.

Oohh, another one complaining about "absolutely no specifics". Please see my response to AngusD at #10.5.

What is the federal govt doing building schools?

Er, ever hear of the States getting monies from the Fed govt?

What is the federal govt doing building schools?

Ahh... supporting job creation? The fed obviously will work with the states on this.

Ever hear of teachers being responsible for the quality of education of our kids? Not new windows.

More schools and teachers = fewer kids per classroom = more individual attention = better education

He also mentioned hiring more teachers. Any other problems?

interestuing idea. build a ghost town to save the country. build it and they wil come.

believe the Republicans in the House should agree to every item in the President's speech.

Now, there's an idea. But, I get the feeling they won't pass anything because they know it will work - after all, there are many of their ideas in there. Remember the time when Repubs actually had ideas that worked? That is until they decided to pledge allegiance to a man (Norquist) instead of the country and Constitution.

I agree with that owl and the first thing passed should be a flat tax on all earnings with no deductions for all. Then the gov would have a very good idea on how much they will take in each year.

owlsview said: Maybe we should just put everything on hold. Have the elections, replace everybody and start all over again.

I'm all for that owls... I'm all for the stalling tactic... :)

Have the elections, replace everybody and start all over again.

Fine by me...at least we might get some new ideas.

Was I hearing things or did Obama propose...gasp...tax cuts? Where in the world do you think he came up with that notion? (Hint: It was whispered that he might have gotten that idea from the TEA Party and Republicans) But, but...haven't we been hearing from the Liberals that tax cuts don't work and won't create jobs, never have and never will?

I am SURE that if I looked hard enough, I could find quite a few Liberal NV posters who called the idea of tax cuts (when it was a Republican idea) stupid and ignorant...now it's President OBAMA'S idea?

That's his plan? Tax cuts? I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu here....

I get the feeling they won't pass anything because they know it will work -

Government, Republican and Democrat have tried for over 200 years to rub out the ups and downs of our economy. You would have thought after 200 years we would know what works. Yes public spending helped during the Great Depression, safety net etc. Unemployment still stayed over 14 pct for over 10 years. It took WW11 to get us out of our troubles. The economy would recover even if we did nothing, but how could politicians claim credit if they didnt pass something, anything.

When stimulus 2, the 2009 was passed, it was claimed it would keep unemployment from rising, forgetting that only 100 billion was allocated to infrastructure spending. Some say the stimulus should be bigger, why not do 10 times bigger, everyone employed with the dollar worthless. On the other side how about reducing taxes to zero and see how that one works.

Bottom line none of it "works", you cant get rid of the ripples, you can tweak here and there you cant eliminate business cycles. In Europe they try also, same lack of results. Unfortunately they and we have gotten to the point where the debt is so high that we wont get paid back when growth reappears. The only economic action that can be proven to have a result is safety nets, continue paying unemployment and that person doesnt go bankrupt. Does it create growth? I doubt it.

Was I hearing things or did Obama propose...gasp...tax cuts? Where in the world do you think he came up with that notion?

At the time of his initial tax cuts I do not believe the Tea Party was the strong organized political tool it has become. There was some merit in it's inception, but was soon hijacked by Dick Armey and is merely a voice of the rich and powerful. In any event, Obama gave 95% of all working families in America a tax cut.

"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time home buyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college." [......]

Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

Well there you go.

Well, putting everything on hold is the equivalent of doing nothing. For now, doing nothing is better than making rush decisions that lead to nothing good--like the bailout.

A huge amount of pork spending--and it did so little to stimulate the economy.

By all means, then, name the plethora of bills that were pushed through so fast that you didn't have time to read them. I'm genuinely curious. This should be fun.

Start with the healthcare bill.

Then there's this years budget, no wait, they didn't pass one. The Democrats would not even propose one.

Then there's this years budget, no wait, they didn't pass one. The Democrats would not even propose one.

As required by law the President submitted a budget on Feb 1, the last day possible. It contained no reference to deficit spending ( it did, however, propose increased spending) or debt ceilings. At the time the President wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase with no reference to cuts. The Senate voted 97-0 to defeat it. Seems strange since I didnt realize that there were 97 Republicans in the Senate:)

I had forgotten that.

You're right. His budget didn't get a single vote.

Hey Steve, I asked a question.

Your question was a sarcastic jab at my genuine question. I figured it was rhetorical, but if you insist...

Was there only one?

I would submit that there was not a single bill passed without adequate time and access to read it. If you believe otherwise, name specific bills. Right now it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too -- implying a lack of time but backing away when challenged on the point. Put your money where your mouth is, owl. Name some bills.

How about Obamacare?

I figured that's what you were referring to. Every version of the Affordable Care Act was available publicly on various government Web sites, including the House and Senate's own sites, and the White House's site. Every time a change was made, every time a new version was formulated, it was available. It was never longer than a short novel, and it was available for over a year.

That means that any elected officials who didn't read it have only themselves to blame.

Do you really believe that our representatives read every bill and every amendment before they vote on it?

Of course not. But that wasn't my question. Your article is titled, "Can't we at least read it first this time?" You're accusing the President of rushing bills through without the proper time to read them. I'm asking you to provide the name of one bill, just one, that didn't give Representatives and Senators time and/or access to read it before passing it. That's your accusation. I'm asking you to back it up.

Being too lazy to read it, or leaving the reading up to staffers and aides, is not the same as being physically unable to read it. You're implying the latter, and when called on it, clinging to the former.

For the 4 millionth time it is ObamaCoverage not care.

owlsview:

No representative or senator reads any bill. They get staffers to do that for them. Most of the bill is just dry language that basically fills in the framework without having any substantive qualities. For example, one part of the bill may have a line item that states, 'insurance companies will be mandated to not deny coverage on preexisting conditions as documented in subsection X'. THEN that subsection X, to support that one line may have a hundred pages of details that explain in law what a preexisting condition means, and what specific illnesses it may cover etc..

That is why laws as passed by congress run into the thousands of pages, it isn't just a matter of stating the law, it needs to also stated what the law means in a legal context. (I read about a third of the act, there really isn't much in there. It doesn't really have that much of an impact on anything, either for or against, the Individual Mandate really isn't much either, and it quite honestly doesn't even need to be in the law itself as insurance companies can implement something similar without the requirement, but the intention is that if an insurance company is not able to disqualify based on preexisting condition, then the insurance company needs to prevent the scenario that a person will live without insurance, then get sick and immediately get insurance.)

For the 4 millionth time it is ObamaCoverage not care.

A rose (or in this case a @!$%# pile) by any other name....etc etc etc

I'm all for revising the amendments process, owl, particularly to block out ones unrelated to the intent of the bill itself. Too often amendments are tacked on to create "traps" for the other side, so it'd be nice to find a way to end that too.

I wouldn't agree that simplicity would reduce loopholes, though. If anything, being incredibly specific and legalistic is what prevents more loopholes from occurring. Say, for example, you don't want foreign money in elections. You could pass a law that says "No foreign money in elections," right?

But what about when that foreign money is transferred to the American division of a company? What about money produced in America through foreign imports? What about if an American company wants to use money it produced from sales overseas? Specificity is needed to address all the eventualities. Simplicity invites loopholes. It leaves more room to budge. We can't stamp out loopholes entirely, but running the other direction seems counter-intuitive to me.

I notice you still haven't named a single bill that wasn't given adequate time and access to read before passage, by the way. Are you giving up that tack, or just hoping I stop calling attention to it?

Actually the HCR bill is very specific, and there really isn't a lot left to doubt on what it does specify (at least the huge chunk of it that I read). There can be different interpretations as to how to achieve what is specified, but the specification itself is pretty clear.

As far as amendments, I don't believe that any bill should have an amendment. The most I would agree to is that bills can be voted on as a group of bills, but that each bill itself should be specific to the objective of the bill (this way you wouldn't get military engine contracts (er um yup, that means you mr boehner) being attached to a bridge repair bill. The jet engine contract would be a very separate bill but voted on as the package. That would at least provide transparency, instead of these things being voted on.

Steve,

That would impact my company (if we made political donations as we don't) because I am canadian and I essentially run my company in the US. Does that make it a Canadian company or an american company and how would that impact political donations.

NOTE: This has nothing to do with why we don't make political donations. Both myself and my business partner feel quite strongly that if an entity is not able to vote, then they should not be allowed to contribute to the political campaign for an election.

As for the health care bill, more than 9 months was spent deliberating it, there was more than enough time to go through it. I was reading it before it was passed.

Why do you need to read it 1st anyway.

Thank you Mrs. Pelosi.

A very good thing that some on newsvine live in the US and not some third world country where there tweets would land them in a torture cell.

LOL. My wife wondered what I was laughing about when I read that.

Thanks!!!!

ok, you really need to go talk to a lawyer to get this into your mind. ALL PERSONS, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, legal or not, have the right to due process. That is a fundamental right that belongs to every person. That is what Habeus Corpus is.

(Actually Bush tried to remove that right from individuals and got spanked by the supreme court (a right wing supreme court no less) on that. It is a fundamental right, for EVERYBODY).

Now also when the 14th amendment was enacted (to deal with the emancipation of the slaves after the civil war), there were no immigration laws to speak of. There was NO concept of an illegal immigrant.

To state that a person does not have the right to due process is quite frankly extremely offensive. It is a misconception that at this point is seriously making me want to leave this country, because what you are saying is that I, as a legal non citizen residing in this country, has no rights whatsoever. That IS what you are saying. You are saying that I am basically a piece of furniture in your mind.

As to your last assertion. Do you have any credible evidence of such? because the only credible reports that I have ever seen on that accusation is that there have been almost NO instances of voter fraud (there has been voter registration fraud, but not voter fraud) to speak of. In fact oddly enough, the most glaring example of voter fraud was anne coulter who voted in two states. So please, lets see some proof of that very serious accusation.

Jonathan: can I assume you're here under an O visa? You're not a "legal non-citizen of the US" to use your wording, but rather, a resident alien. The question is, whether you're here under an employer-sponsored visa, have over-extended your stay under a student/visitor visa, etc.

Just wanting to clarify for those here who, unlike me, don't deal with immigration matters on a daily basis.

Never even heard of an O visa, I am here under an E visa as an executive of a company. I employ 200 people.

My point is that if I get picked up, I have the right to due process. Due process does not mean that I do or do not get deported, it means I have the right to have my case heard under a legal process. THAT is a fundamental right.

So, you're here under an E Visa. Treaty trader, treaty investor, CNMI or Australian E-3?

For those interested on what those visas entail, please visit the USCIS website or click here.

O Visas are for people with extraordinary ability--like olympians, artists, etc.

Jonathan-2055273

Since you're here on a visa, you are here legally. Thus you may be entitled to due process! That I will agree with. But if you're here illegally without a visa then you are not entitled to due process! It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to figure that one out. Since you are not really familiar with the United States Constitution, I will give you a copy of it to study at your leisure. Perhaps someday when you go back to your own country you can spend your time trying to get ratified there.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Jonathan: I was attempting to educate you on what an O-visa is--obviously, you wouldn't have qualified for one.

However, so far, your facts leave me befuddled as to how you qualify for an E-visa. Then again, it's not like you have an obligation to state those facts for my benefit...

Have a nice day.

Well said Owl!

Lkessler

Your VERY thinly veiled insult aside, the fact that I am an 'executive' as well as a principal owner of my company makes me eligible for an E visa.

owlsview

Actually no, my company has not received one cent of stimulus money, and our government contracts are for service, which means that we perform a service, we get paid for it. No subsidization. As to why the company is in the US? well my business partner is america, I was engaged to an american when we formed the company. Unfortunately we were in a car accident and she passed away. I left my money in the company after I left the US back then. The reason why I am here now is because my business partner wants to retire. So it was either cash out or take over.

And while the mexican government hasn't been all that helpful, they are NOT paying people to cross the border. They may not be stopping them, but if they did, that would be considered a human rights violation. This is NOT an organized invasion sponsored by the Mexican government.

And I have never said that the US doesn't have the right to protect itself. When the Passport requirement was initiated, (I was still in Canada at the time), there was a hell to pay attitude in Canada for it. My attitude was, so what, that is their right to stipulate that you need a passport to enter the US, regardless of the wisdom of that decision.

I have also never said that the US doesn't have the right to enforce its immigration laws, all I have stated is that due process needs to be followed. THAT IS ALL I HAVE SAID. And quite frankly if someone would have the wisdom to create a law that makes it a FELONY to knowingly hire or to hire without conducting due diligence as to the eligibility for that person to legally work in the US, then the number of jobs that would be available to illegal immigrants would drop and they would stop coming into the country. They come to the country because there are people willing to hire them. If you dry up the supply of jobs, then you will dry up the source of people to fill those jobs. Nobody wants to do that though. That would be the least costly way to deal with the problem, and make the enforcement part much easier. But hey, lets just bitch about there not being enough resources to kick them all out when you haven't dealt with why they are coming in the first place.

As to your specific points:

1) don't know, don't care, but it is interesting to note that the legal situation is different now (there are people that have gone to canada to get out of going back to Iraq). The legal situation now is that because it was a draft then that it was legally allowed, but now that the individuals all joined the military on their own, that they can't go back from a commitment that they willingly made.

2) Little beer stores on what border specifically? Most provinces actually don't have private beer stores, (alberta being the major one and Quebec allowing beer to be sold in grocery stores), not sure about the others except Ontario which has a government controlled and strictly regulated beer store system and I would like to see one of them that is even close to the border.

As to the drinking age, it is 19 in most provinces. They are not under age at the point of purchase. I hope you are not insinuating that Canada must increase the drinking age to 21 to appease americans. (now I do know that windsor ontario is a big crossing point, but if you look at the state of the city on the other side of the border, the ability to drink is not just because of the age, drowning out your sorrows is a much bigger need).

3) Considering the amount of guns in the US, that is a really odd complaint. The major conduit for gun trafficking in canada is through the native reserves that straddle the border. However in general, there is very little gun smuggling that goes on using Canada as a conduit. In fact the RCMP and the FBI routinely (don't know why ATF isn't involved but that may be because only the FBI can get authority to work with Canadian authorities) cooperate in gun control. Guns are NOT a huge issue in Canada. As far as the shipping from Canada, it just doesn't seem to be an issue. And Canadian laws stipulate that if something was originally under the jurisdiction of another country's regulations, that it can't be exported from Canada unless the laws of the home country are respected. That means that if the US requires an export licence to export a device, then that same item will require the same export license to export it from Canada.

I am not even sure why this would even be an issue, I have never heard anything of the sort that this is a problem.

As for getting medical care, that is usually only a matter of extremely specialized procedures that you won't be able to get in Canada because of the population difference. I have never had any problems with getting appropriate medical care in Canada (I have in the US by the way). And when that situation occurs, the provinces will send the person to a practitioner that is best suited for the patient (there have been some that have been sent to europe, but most are to the US because it is closer), and most importantly will PAY FOR IT. The US on the other hand, the medical system is already rationed, to those that can pay for it. (I shudder to think about what would have happened to me if I didn't have the money that I have).

And I reiterate with regards to immigration, I have NO problems with enforcing the laws, I have a problem with removing a persons due process rights, which includes adjudication, because those due process rights are part of the law. People seem to think that just because I don't agree with removing a persons due process rights, that I am against enforcing the laws. On the contrary, I am for preserving those rights specifically because that is proper enforcement of the laws.

Jonathan:

You wrote: Your VERY thinly veiled insult aside, the fact that I am an 'executive' as well as a principal owner of my company makes me eligible for an E visa.

Really, me? Insult you? Please, cite the insult. I said I was attempting to educate you--that's not an insult. It's a statement of what I was trying to do in order to better familiarize myself with your particulars...

So, if you're so easily offended may I suggest you cease communicating in this forum? I insulted no one--let alone you.

Actually no, my company has not received one cent of stimulus money, and our government contracts are for service, which means that we perform a service, we get paid for it. No subsidization. As to why the company is in the US? well my business partner is america, I was engaged to an american when we formed the company. Unfortunately we were in a car accident and she passed away. I left my money in the company after I left the US back then. The reason why I am here now is because my business partner wants to retire. So it was either cash out or take over.

I always say, if you can make it in the US without needing the taxpayer's help to bail you out, especially in this economy, I say more power to you. So, continue on. We can use all the jobs private industry can make--after all, Obama's dream that this new "bill" will create new jobs is, quite frankly, pie in the sky. Nothing he's done has done one bit to stimulate the economy. Only the private sector can do that, and only if they're not in fear of how stable their particular market sector is. Some areas of the market are extremely stable right now--and profitable. Whereas others, well, have experienced a blow-out and remain flat (like Real Estate).

And while the mexican government hasn't been all that helpful, they are NOT paying people to cross the border. They may not be stopping them, but if they did, that would be considered a human rights violation. This is NOT an organized invasion sponsored by the Mexican government.

I doubt they are. Otherwise, coyotes wouldn't have such profitable businesses.

And I have never said that the US doesn't have the right to protect itself. When the Passport requirement was initiated, (I was still in Canada at the time), there was a hell to pay attitude in Canada for it. My attitude was, so what, that is their right to stipulate that you need a passport to enter the US, regardless of the wisdom of that decision.

And I still say that's wonderful--why not need a passport? It should be a requirement for everyone.

I have also never said that the US doesn't have the right to enforce its immigration laws, all I have stated is that due process needs to be followed. THAT IS ALL I HAVE SAID. And quite frankly if someone would have the wisdom to create a law that makes it a FELONY to knowingly hire or to hire without conducting due diligence as to the eligibility for that person to legally work in the US, then the number of jobs that would be available to illegal immigrants would drop and they would stop coming into the country. They come to the country because there are people willing to hire them. If you dry up the supply of jobs, then you will dry up the source of people to fill those jobs. Nobody wants to do that though. That would be the least costly way to deal with the problem, and make the enforcement part much easier. But hey, lets just bitch about there not being enough resources to kick them all out when you haven't dealt with why they are coming in the first place.

More that we agree on, Jonathon. I say that we hire the people willing to work for a certain wage. If illegals are the ones, that's why they're here. A lot of people in the US think certain jobs are "beneath them." That's incredibly sad, but that's how it is for too many. And they'd rather sit on their butts than work their hind-ends off.

So, again, we agree.

And I reiterate with regards to immigration, I have NO problems with enforcing the laws, I have a problem with removing a persons due process rights, which includes adjudication, because those due process rights are part of the law. People seem to think that just because I don't agree with removing a persons due process rights, that I am against enforcing the laws. On the contrary, I am for preserving those rights specifically because that is proper enforcement of the laws.

To my knowledge, ICE has yet to remove anyone before following protocol for due process prior to removal.

And that can take years!!!

Lkessler #20.7 -

Obama's dream that this new "bill" will create new jobs is, quite frankly, pie in the sky. Nothing he's done has done one bit to stimulate the economy. Only the private sector can do that, and only if they're not in fear of how stable their particular market sector is.

I wish more people would understand that, and that all this Government paying for temp/low wage jobs are not the answer long term. They are just a means to pacify the situation, and ultimately just cost more in the end. But who cares about long term? Votes are what is important right now, and paving the way of "Hope" for re election.

However, so far, your facts leave me befuddled as to how you qualify for an E-visa.

is insulting. The only reason I would have looked at an O-visa is if my immigration lawyer discussed it with me. WHen I read up on the different visa types, I basically ignored the ones that I knew were of no relevance to me.

And I didn't say we don't receive government money. We have contracts on government projects, but they are all at cost contracts at this point. I am not all that sure I want to get any further in with regards to doing more work for the departments that we do because I quite honestly don't think it is healthy for a business to have to fight for your contract every year when up front you know the contract is going to take 5 years to complete (those numbers are just an example, nothing specific to us or a contract). It isn't bailout money though. It is money to provide a service and the customer just so happens to be a government department.

As far as the passport issue, once the anger died down in Canada, it is sad that the most anger that seems to have resulted from it comes from Americans, because they now need a passport to get back in their own country. Irony is a bitch.

As far as the hiring, you can't have it both ways, you can't justify the hiring of illegals, but then complain that the government isn't doing enough to remove them. That, even on the surface, is just double speak.

As to my knowledge, on an annual basis, under the Obama administration, ICE has removed more illegals than they have in any previous year. Now part of that has nothing to do with Obama and anything specific, but more to do with how bad the economy is, and getting deported basically is a free meal and a free ride home. As far as time, that only takes years for specific cases. Unfortunately the backlog is so high so the duration is longer than it should be, but the reality is that deporting them does nothing until you deal with the issue of people being willing to hire them because they just come right back. That is like saying I have a hole in a dam and I am going to fix it by pumping the water over the damn to the reservoir. It doesn't solve the problem. The problem is the jobs and the willingness of people to hire them. Make it a felony (where you lose your right to vote, and forfeiture of assets), and that will stop. If you are not willing to do that, then any increase in deportations is just going to increase the flow of them coming over the border into the country.

The supposed fact that Americans are unwilling to do the jobs that illegals perform is pretty much a fallacy. With the exception of farm labor. In my trip across the country I have seen a lot of American citizens doing the jobs that are considered beneath them. Such as flipping burgers. I have worked for many years in the manufacturing industry, and the majority of employees were of south American decent. Some of them didn't even speak English! They are more than happy with a lower wage because so many of them are living in one house. Sometimes as many as four or five families live in a single house! So the cost of living for them is minimal compared to an American living in a single or dual income home who struggles with their bills. A lot of the money that these Hispanics make are sent home to Mexico. Mexico's second largest income is what they earn off of their compatriots working in America and sending money back there! Do you remember when president Calderone protested having illegals forcibly sent back across the border?

How are Americans supposed to compete with that? The only reason why I survived is because of my impressive resume and background experience in mass production techniques. I also worked on gov't projects! And even those places were predominantly Hispanic!

My friend's wife was refused a job because she was not bilingual! My friend is 53 years old and works for a car dealership detailing cars!

ET: In a way, I agree and disagree--I am definitely over-qualified for my job--my boss has told me so--but, he's looking for someone who can learn fast, and is willing to hang in there long term, which I am. And I've already improved his clientele rate by approaching someone I didn't even know at the suggestion of a friend of mine.

Needless to say, I've already landed a referral from the place, long before I ever sent my thank you letter to the woman I made contact with. I acknowledged this in my letter.

My boss is extra-happy with me. I get paid @!$%#, but my boss is super-nice to me, the environment is awesome, we get to laugh together, and we're always on the same page. I get plenty of leeway to do what I want at work, as long as my work gets done (and it does!)

So, are there people out there who'd rather sit on their butts than take a job they consider "beneath them" in exchange for a check from UI? You bet.

Are most people that way? I don't believe that.

Still, it doesn't change the facts--the fraud exists, it's out there and a lot of people are getting away with it.

PS. Pity the company who didn't hire her because she doesn't speak Spanish--a good immersion course would've been an invaluable investment, and she would've become an invaluable employee--one who would've made the company's profitability increase several times her salary in a relatively short time.

Some people/business-owners never truly see the value in investing in potential talent... *sigh!*

PS. No shame in honest work! :D

LK,We actually do agree! There are some slobs out there that rely on unemployment insurance. But the ones who don't want to be on the Dole will take any job including mowing lawns! Washing cars, even spinning signs on street corners! In fact most of the ones they have in California are older white men trying to make ends meet. Most of the burger flipping jobs have been taken by Hispanics. They don't want to hire anyone who doesn't know how to speak Spanish. Since all of the kitchen workers are all Spanish speaking, that's the way it is in Southern California. .

We are no longer in a recession, we are already in a depression! His royal majesty Obama is saying "let them eat cake"! Meanwhile he is consuming the American pie while the rest of the country is joining the Soup Lines! :-]

ET: I want to send Obama a cold pie made of crow on January 2013 and see how he likes it!!

If you're going to make a wish, you might as well make it a big one! I wish president Obama were impeached and upon leaving the White House everybody in the country is there waiting for their turn to kick him in the but all the way too a waiting ship that is leaving this country to points unknown!

Preferably back to Kenya! He will be happy there with his Muslim family. But he would not be safe in America.

Well, I'd settle for cold crow... I think it'd be fun to watch him eat that!

and the sad thing about immigration is that the problem has been around since Reagan, yet the original comment that spurred this discussion was about blaming obama. The reality is that it very much is a joke, but blaming obama either just does nothing, because it honestly has nothing to do with Obama or it makes it worse because it detracts from the real problem in that the entire system needs to be revamped. Taking away peoples fundamental rights doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it worse because it will drive people even more underground.

The reason it is centered on Him now, is because of his tactics of how to deal with it at a time when unemployment is highest, and it will be election time. His fix isn't a fix at all. It is a political move to muster votes, not deal with or enforce current laws. Everyone knows Immigration has been a problem for a long time in this Country.

his tactics? he has no money to actually apply any tactics as the budgets are frozen. The recent decision (and the criticisms were long before this decision) is more a way to adapt to the lack of resources. but hey, you should contact mr Kyl, one of the obstructionists in the senate and get him put up some more funds. It is congress after all that determines the money.

It is pure politics and hatred for no reason towards obama. And the polarization that this country is experiencing is ripping the country apart.

Whether his tactics cost him money out of his budget is meaningless compared to the money it is costing in not enforcing the current laws we have. The point as far as Congress and their asking for cuts is even mute to be honest. Because a lot of the illegals are not paying taxes anyway to raise revenue. So it is no lose enforcing current laws. It is a gain because now you have someone that is a tax payer in that position contributing funds to the Social Spending Programs of this Country. You do understand that don't you? The criticism came after his proposal of this new Amnesty he pushed through

but if he doesn't have the money to enforce the laws, then he has to prioritize. And by the way, NO amount of money is going to fix the problem. He could be given a trillion dollars and it still won't fix the problem. So what does anyone do other than ask for comprehensive immigration reform, which he has done, and neither party is interested in doing it. So as far as I am concerned, his hands are tied, there is no legitimacy for the complaints.

I don't see Government getting smaller for the lack of money. That is no excuse. Come on now. It's not that we can't enforce the laws or afford to do so, it's the fact they don't because law enforcement's hands are tied because of Liberal special interest groups and activist groups that are lobbying this crap. You have to be smarter than that.