Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
California lawmakers pass landmark 'sanctuary state' bill
Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:44 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Saturday, September 16, 2017 5:07 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Saturday, September 16, 2017 5:59 PM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: California Criminal Colony. How many non-criminals will want to keep their families getting murdered by their neighbors?
Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:37 PM
Quote: California lawmakers approve landmark 'sanctuary state' bill to expand protections for immigrants http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html#nt=oft06a-1la1 California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration. The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations. After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session. The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies. On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates. “These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.” Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions. After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act. Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public. But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated. The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents' access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law. The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed. In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California. Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order. Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals. They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities. “We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said. De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump. It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency. Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. At the request of the California Senate, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.” Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent. In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill “reflects law enforcement mission already underway.” On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids. “We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.” jazmine.ulloa@latimes.com @jazmineulloa UPDATES: 10:40 a.m.: This article was updated with additional details about a federal court order against the Trump administration and reaction from Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell. This article was originally published at 3:40 a.m. Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Quote:California lawmakers approve landmark 'sanctuary state' bill to expand protections for immigrants http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html#nt=oft06a-1la1 California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration. The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations. After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session. The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies. On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates. “These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.” Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions. After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act. Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public. But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated. The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents' access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law. The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed. In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California. Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order. Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals. They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities. “We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said. De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump. It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency. Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. At the request of the California Senate, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.” Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent. In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill “reflects law enforcement mission already underway.” On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids. “We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.” jazmine.ulloa@latimes.com @jazmineulloa UPDATES: 10:40 a.m.: This article was updated with additional details about a federal court order against the Trump administration and reaction from Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell. This article was originally published at 3:40 a.m. Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
Quote:California lawmakers approve landmark 'sanctuary state' bill to expand protections for immigrants http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html#nt=oft06a-1la1 California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration. The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations. After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session. The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies. On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates. “These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.” Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions. After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act. Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public. But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated. The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents' access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law. The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed. In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California. Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order. Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals. They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities. “We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said. De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump. It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency. Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. At the request of the California Senate, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.” Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent. In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill “reflects law enforcement mission already underway.” On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids. “We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.” jazmine.ulloa@latimes.com @jazmineulloa UPDATES: 10:40 a.m.: This article was updated with additional details about a federal court order against the Trump administration and reaction from Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell. This article was originally published at 3:40 a.m. Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times
Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:50 PM
Saturday, September 16, 2017 7:01 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order.
Saturday, September 16, 2017 7:43 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: California Criminal Colony. How many non-criminals will want to keep their families getting murdered by their neighbors? A bill passed by the state legislature Friday requires Trump to release his five most recent years of tax returns to get on the ballot in 2020.
Sunday, September 17, 2017 12:49 AM
Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: If signed it does become CA law. Maybe that's no big deal to you. As a Californian, it's a big deal to me. I personally resent my $$ going to coddle illegal aliens. Yanno - what part of illegal do people not understand?
Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:28 AM
Sunday, September 17, 2017 7:45 AM
Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: If signed it does become CA law. Maybe that's no big deal to you. As a Californian, it's a big deal to me. I personally resent my $$ going to coddle illegal aliens. Yanno - what part of illegal do people not understand?Trump’s decision to kill DACA — never mind the attempt to obscure things with that meaningless delay — is, first and foremost, a moral obscenity: throwing out 800,000 young people who are Americans in every way that matters,
Quote: who have done nothing wrong,
Quote: basically for racial reasons.
Quote: But it’s also worth noting that Jeff Sessions just tried to sell it with junk economics, claiming that the Dreamers are taking American jobs. No, they aren’t, even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American. DACA is very much a boon to the rest of the U.S. population
Quote: There is no upside whatever to this cruelty, unless you just want to have fewer people with brown skin and Hispanic surnames around. Which is, of course, what this is really all about. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/blahblahblah I checked just now: Republicans are Happy Trump ended DACA, but they're less sure about deporting DREAMers. Source: NPR.blahblahblah Trump says Jump. His Supporters ask, How high? In the Trump era, Republicans have been revising their views on right and wrong. Are their moral convictions writ in stone? Apparently not. www.nytimes.com/blahblah
Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:43 PM
6STRINGJOKER
Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:11 PM
RIVERLOVE
Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:50 PM
Quote:throwing out 800,000 young people who are Americans in every way that matters
Quote: even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American
Quote: There is no upside whatever to this
Quote:unless you just want to have fewer people with brown skin and Hispanic surnames around
Sunday, September 17, 2017 6:35 PM
Monday, September 18, 2017 9:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Quote:throwing out 800,000 young people who are Americans in every way that matters except legally. There's that little matter of the law. Quote: even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American Citizens are Americans.Quote: There is no upside whatever to this except establishing the rule of law. Quote:unless you just want to have fewer people with brown skin and Hispanic surnames around Unless you want to give a break to illegal Vietnamese, Cambodians, Nigerians, Chinese, and so on. Why should only brown-skinned people with Hispanic surnames be exempted from the law? Are you hoping to impose even MORE discrimination?
Monday, September 18, 2017 10:18 AM
Monday, September 18, 2017 10:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Take a hike, trust fund baby.
Monday, September 18, 2017 10:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Take a hike, trust fund baby. You ain't philosopher Henry David Thoreau living in a self-built cabin on your own personal Walden Pond when you isolate yourself in your fully-paid-for house. There is an opinion piece worth a two minute reading: "In a society too short of common goals, identity politics are an imperfect answer" www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/16/no-common-goals-fragmented-society-identity-politics The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Monday, September 18, 2017 11:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Rather than playing the blame game about it, they should figure out how to un-indoctrinate all of the kids who had it ingrained in their brain at Liberal colleges for the last 20 years. That's a huge job that I don't have a solution for. I didn't have anything to do with it though, so you people can figure it out. You broke it, you bought it.
Monday, September 18, 2017 1:06 PM
Quote:What happened to you, 1kiki? Last year you were a Bernie supporter. This year you are a Republican.
Monday, September 18, 2017 1:10 PM
Monday, September 18, 2017 1:21 PM
Monday, September 18, 2017 2:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: What happened to you, 1kiki? Last year you were a Bernie supporter. This year you are a Republican.- SECOND
Quote:What caused you to flip on fireflyfans.net? There is a story there you are not telling. I'd expect it from 6string because he is made of prototypical Republican stuff (angry about foreigners, angry at bosses, angry that libtards don't respect his whiteness) but what is your socioeconomic motivation? And don't give me this crap about "legal" because immigration laws are made to satisfy some primitive nativism yearnings, not technical reasons.
Quote: Righto. Laws change, hopefully they get better, wiser as our society matures. Mixed race and same sex marriages were against the law and now they are not. It always seemed stupid and backward to me that there ever were those laws.- G
Quote: Taking care of the DACA people or any immigrants that are here now
Quote: regardless of color or country of origin, especially because they are here in large part due to our broken immigration laws and process
Quote: Fix the laws going forward
Quote: and take care of these people now - let's be Big about it and not miserly like old man Trump/Potter. And if you DO want to be Trump/Potter, then think of all the tax revenue we get from them and the money we'd save!-
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by G: Quote:Originally posted by second: What happened to you, 1kiki? Last year you were a Bernie supporter. This year you are a Republican. What caused you to flip on fireflyfans.net? There is a story there you are not telling. And don't give me this crap about "legal" because immigration laws are made to satisfy some primitive nativism yearnings, not technical reasons. Righto. Laws change, hopefully they get better, wiser as our society matures.
Quote:Originally posted by second: What happened to you, 1kiki? Last year you were a Bernie supporter. This year you are a Republican. What caused you to flip on fireflyfans.net? There is a story there you are not telling. And don't give me this crap about "legal" because immigration laws are made to satisfy some primitive nativism yearnings, not technical reasons.
Quote: Mixed race and same sex marriages were against the law and now they are not. It always seemed stupid and backward to me that there ever were those laws. Taking care of the DACA people or any immigrants that are here now, regardless of color or country of origin, especially because they are here in large part due to our broken immigration laws and process, is the right thing to do. Fix the laws going forward and take care of these people now - let's be Big about it and not miserly like old man Trump/Potter. And if you DO want to be Trump/Potter, then think of all the tax revenue we get from them and the money we'd save! You could build a wall with it! < / snark > https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/07/the-mind-boggling-cost-of-daca-repeal/ "Deportation of Dreamers will mean reduced productivity and reduced tax revenue at the federal, state and local levels. According to a 2017 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Dreamers pay as much as $2 billion annually in taxes." "Finally, the administrative and functional costs of deporting Dreamers would be staggering. As we have written previously, the average cost to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from arrest to removal of an undocumented individual is $12,500. Deporting the approximately 800,000 Dreamers would cost the government nearly $10 billion."
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: PS Perhaps you don't remember, SECOND, but I had a prescription for democratic identity politics - the FAIR DEAL. Everyone gets a fair deal. It doesn't matter what your pick-a-part identity is. You get the same opportunities as everyone else. As for 'immigration laws' - EVERY COUNTRY HAS THEM, SECOND. We are NOT citizens of the world, free too alight wherever the breeze takes us. If you don't believe that, try going to live in Canada, or New Zealand. You'll find their laws and enforcement are far tougher than ours. Our problem, as I posted earlier, is that we didn't enforce ours for decades, out of abundant concern for profit margins.
Quote: It had nothing to do with their rights to be here illegally, because those rights don't exist.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: So why has there been no Amendment to allow any Public Schools Indoctrinated student the right to vote?
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: So why has there been no Amendment to allow any Public Schools Indoctrinated student the right to vote? The system wants to coddle children. To raise them in a bubble where they can put whatever ideas they desire in their heads while both of their parents are wage slaves all day long. There is all of this talk of "free" college all of the time. 4 more years of indoctrination which would only be intensified when the federal government is "paying" for it all. I actually wonder if the voting age might increase to 22 or 23 one day, but also with the requirement that if you were born after a certain date that you can only vote if you graduated college. Of course that would be considered racist still today, but in a US where every kid can go to college no matter what their scores were, without having to pay a dime for it... when nobody could rightfully claim that certain groups have a disadvantage anymore...? I'm not saying that it will happen, so I don't want KPO to be putting this in the predictions thread. I'm just throwing out the idea. It would certainly be a means to homogenize the vote.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 11:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: That must be the most insipid idea I've heard in a very long time. Not sure if I've ever even heard it before, even from the most rabidly clueless Libtards. I would support the opposite concept, beautifully outlined by Heinlein. No voting rights until you've served in the military. IIRC, no citizenship until earned by that service, either. So no holding Federal Public Office, either.
Quote:Voting, we might even say, is the next to last refuge of the politically impotent. ~Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves To Death"
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:53 AM
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:51 AM
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Do you have any suggestions for "qualifications" for voting ?
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:45 AM
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:03 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Riverlove: Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker: Do you have any suggestions for "qualifications" for voting ? Full vote - Property owners 3/4 vote - Renters 1/2 vote - College dorm residents 1/4 vote - Live with parents No vote - Receive Govt. assistance * penalty for lying on registration form is public impalement.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:06 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Voting requirements: 1) Be a citizen 2) Have reached the "age of majority" as defined by the state of residence 3) Speak and read English. BTW, in theory, since learning English is a requirement for becoming a citizen, why does CA provide VOTING MATERIALS in 17 different languages? 4) Not be under conservatorship. 5) Register to vote 6) Be properly and positively identified before voting Yes, it means that all kinds of stupid, improvident people get to vote, but since we would all be affected by the results (assuming that we didn't actually live in an oligarchy already) we should all have a say. Personally, I'm more concerned about vote counting, the manipulation of the voter rolls by whichever party is in power, gerrymandering, voter ID, and money in politics than about the voter requirements.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:16 PM
Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:05 PM
Wednesday, September 26, 2018 12:16 AM
Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:20 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: And now the Sanctuary cops are fearful the the Illegal Aliens community has hurt feelings and won't buy the cops donuts anymore.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018 10:39 AM
Monday, February 25, 2019 11:40 PM
Sunday, April 14, 2019 4:42 PM
Sunday, April 14, 2019 5:13 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Trump is threatening to dump illegal migrants into sanctuary cities, and altho that would affect me negatively (ouch!) I think it's a perfect response to this sanctuary idiocy. I think we should start with Silicon Valley, where all of these internet giants have their nice (gated) homes.
Sunday, April 14, 2019 5:45 PM
JONGSSTRAW
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Trump is threatening to dump illegal migrants into sanctuary cities, and altho that would affect me negatively (ouch!) I think it's a perfect response to this sanctuary idiocy. I think we should start with Silicon Valley, where all of these internet giants have their nice (gated) homes. ----------- Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:28 PM
Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:49 PM
Sunday, April 14, 2019 9:06 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Sunday, April 14, 2019 11:52 PM
REAVERFAN
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL