Kevin and

It's always amusing to see how people think that the grass is always greener on the other side or at least would be greener.

Any immigration legislature that doesn't begin with strict enforcement of labour laws will be a failure. E-Verify and prohibitive penalties to these who employ illegal aliens need to be enacted.

http://www.ucmj.us/uniform-code-of-military-justice/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles.shtml#888.%20ART.%2088.%20CONTEMPT%20TOWARD%20OFFICIALS
ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
They could court-martial him.

http://www.ucmj.us/uniform-code-of-military-justice/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles.shtml#888.%20ART.%2088.%20CONTEMPT%20TOWARD%20OFFICIALS
ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
They could court-martial him.

Yeah sure. Let's all run out and pay that tuition to get a college degree only to find out there is no jobs or the one you get is $10 per hour and you got all those loans to pay off.

Over 10 years, which is about 100 billion per year, which is barely 10% of the yearly defense related spending of 1 to 1.2 trillion each year.

I disagree that stiffer penalties wouldn't work...but I think maybe stricter enforcement would do the trick.

Do you have any clue what's going on in our economy right now? Do you think we can afford $5k per illegal? where the fuque would that money come from, hrmm? The tree outside the White House?
My solution: fine the hell out of employers...they will self deport if no work.

Disgraceful, really. Makes you wonder what's going on in the Obama administration.
Gotta wonder, though, how effective this 2007 law really is. If it worked as intended, AZ wouldn't have this illegal alien issue that triggered SB1070. I mean, if illegals can't work in the state, it stands to reason that not all that many would set-up shop there...

It's of no matter if AZ's e-verify law is effective or not. It's about this administration's intent to undermine state's rights and increase the dominance of the federal government. They have made it clear that they are unconcerned about the problems states with large populations of illegals face. They have made no effort to help the states solve these problems; instead, they have been very vocal about opposing state sovereignty and pounding them into the ground.
Rather then step up, or even apologize for their lack of support, they have set out to neuter states that dare to challenge federal inaction and incompetence, and scare others into not even trying. This is not a cooperative administration. It is not a government of the people, who overwhelming empathize with AZ's immigration issue and their efforts to stem the tide. This is a slap in the face not only to states, but to the citizens dwelling within them. Obama simply doesn't care about us. He is partying while Rome burns, and has no interest in changing course.
Shame on those who voted this bunch into power.

At the same time, I find it frightening that Congress can just strip away the citizenship of an American-born person.

Anyone who tells you to lie at the interview is giving you the worst possible advice imaginable.

We all know how blameless the British are, now if you excuse me I have to use these small pox laden blankets they gave my people.

iTuan, you have to realize that they are GOD and enjoy f*****g up peoples lives. They have a quota and need to cull the numbers. Soccer whereabouts and players' names are not why she failed. This is so they can justify when they say you do not have valid relationship. Honestly on the next interview they won't ask about players' names it will be something else if they want to fail you. I met another guy in Saigon whose fiance failed because she couldn't describe San Jose, CA very well and the man didn't have any of his family members at the Dam Hoi in their pictures. This is a numbers game and I would advise you to write to each other once a week this is the best proof of contact and save the envelopes also write to your senator and congressman often and save any correspondence they send you. Their goal is to wait you out hoping you will quit and they can wipe their hands clean. This is a simple luck of the draw to get a CO who is in a good mood and liked his coffee.

This is why I don't understand meat eating people who disapprove of hunting. If you are a vegan, I respect your point of view about hunting, though I don't agree with it. But if you eat meat and you consider hunting cruel, you are in denial.

its official. steven is getting whipped at his own game & now he's looking for help.
for this 'plea' to be taken remotely serious YOU would need to quit throwing red herring all day. at least 60% of you theads are designed to cause flame wars. then bump that % up to once someone disagrees with your pov. thats when the, 'bigoted' 'racist' '**' 'flat earther' 'narrow minded' 'xenophobe' 'right wing terrorist' to name a few cans of your trademark gasoline start pumping out of your keyboard. then it goes to 'you're a troll', 'this is XYZ post under your real account'.. face it steven the days of the mods showing gross favoritism & bias are gone... if you quit looking for flame wars, you'll quit getting them.
you're an organizer move it to OT. steven you posted a OT style red herring thread in the site & related -A Plea to Long Time, Level-Headed Members Who Still Post Here-... did you think the people you bicker with & routinely attack aren't going to come read & respond to this?
OMG! this is probabaly a TOS violation. but, the 'experiment' was intended to be an unmoderated forum & it was for sometime for everyone. then certain people wanted certain others moderated. thats when the 'spam patrol' was born. the 'spam patrol' actually was instructed to & did only moderated 1 person, kept the board free of that poster & actual spam. oddly the same people asking for that person to be gone, kept talking about him 24/7...all the while it was still pretty much anything goes for everyone else. well thats not right is it? he was let back to at least defend himself..he then was booted..came back..booted..came back on & on. meanwhile people were still going on unmoderated. a group of people...actually several different groups of people didn't appreciate the tone of the conversations on the 'experiment' nor the results coming from those conversation..'cross sites'. so cross sites were launched back....hmm a TOS that almost mirrors another we were all firmiliar with was now in place....yet still not applied word for word. the former 'spam squad' forced into a 'moderator' role were instantly in a no win sitsuation. so what to do? lets see what happens. you know what happened steven. it became crystal clear that some people wanted an unmoderated forum for themselves, but not for everyone. because when the moderators on the 'experiment' did anything. it was days of 'wha wha abuse of power'. so they let it go some more. it came back to the same thing. the ones wanting the unmoderated forum couldn't take the flames coming back at them. so they left. soMEone finally got the original 'problem' to chill...but people still don't like the venom when it gets spit right back at them. so it remains a 'ghost town'....
lead change by setting an example if you want the OT to chill steven.
N/S me either

Fourth Amendment, anybody?

this "housing authority" is spending your tax dollars to give free housing to welfare families. they are an arm of the state, and have the authority to determine a family unsuitable for free housing on basis of various offenses, including use of the facility for prostitution or drug trafficking, or any other illegal activity. truancy has now been added to the lost.

They should just enforce the laws we already have.

9th and 10th Amendment.
It doesn't say the Government can make people buy health insurance either.

Police have no obligation to protect an individual.
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody )
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

IN your effort to down play the alarming trend back home, this jewel of yours was my fav.
"very few of these violent crimes involve guns, and very few of these violent crimes involve someone being seriously injured or killed and very few of these violent crimes affect people in any but the poorest regions and communities."
Okay we get your point,....- these crimes happen to "those" people so relax.

Imagine my shock that this article doesn't mention the 1997 British gun ban may be a contributing factor to the rise in violent crime......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html
True scale of violent crime rise revealed
The true scale of how violent crime has grown under Labour has been disclosed by Whitehall officials.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 10:00PM GMT 08 Mar 2010
Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.
The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.
The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power.
It is the first time such a trend in police recorded crime can be made because a change was made in counting rules in 2002 which ministers have always insisted meant figures before that date were not, therefore, comparable.
Instead, they have always used a separate the separate British Crime Survey which suggests violence has dropped by more than 40 per cent since 1998.
The Tories, who requested the new research, said the findings make a mockery of such claims and reinforce the public's fear that violence is in fact rising.
Statiticians in the Commons Library have used a previous Home Office estimate on the effect of the change in counting rules to estimate the impact on previous figures, had those rules been in place then.
Just last week, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said violent crime had dropped by 1.5 million offences under Labour before attempting to blame a growing fear of crime on the Tories for "ramping up" public panic.
One criminologist accused the Government of "scheming and manipulation" who knew it was in their interests to avoid historical comparisons.
The figures will also be a boost for the Conservatives who were accused by the head of the Statistics Authority of damaging public trust with their use of statistics on violent crime.
Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the authority, warned Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, that comparisons of police information on violent attacks between the late 1990s and 2008-9 were "likely to mislead the public" as it omitted Home Office warnings that the figures for periods before 2002 were not comparable.
However, that comparison can now be made and shows recorded crime has continued to rise sharply in the last decade.
The row centres on the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in 2002 which aimed to harmonise the way police recorded offences.
Prior to that date, officers had more discretion to decided whether a crime had been committed and the system left the possibility of offences not being recorded.
The change put the onus on recording the basis of whether the victim believed an offence had occurred, which led to an almost immediate increase in crime figures.
The research by the Commons Library uses an estimate by the Home Office that the change is likely to have resulted in a 23 per cent increase in recorded violent crime.
On that basis, it estimates the official figure in 1998/99 of 502,778 would in fact have been 618,417 had the new counting rules been in force.
Recorded violence in 2008/09 was 903,993 but 15,500 offences have been subtracted as they were recorded by the British Transport Police, whose figures were not included in 1998/99, resulting in the 887,942 figure.
It is in stark contrast with the British Crime Survey, which questions more than 40,000 people, which reports violent crime has dropped from 3.5 million to 2.1 million over the same period.
The BCS also does not include certain offence, including murder and other homicides and offences committed by under 16-year-olds.
Mr Grayling said: "This new analysis confirms that the level of violent crime actually reported to police officers in police stations up and down the country is much higher than it was a decade ago.
"This just serves to underline the scale of the challenge the country faces in fixing our broken society.
"Over the past couple of weeks we have seen a series of horrendous violent crimes committed around the country. Whatever the statistical debates it is absolutely clear that we have deep rooted problems that just have to be tackled.”
David Green, criminologist and director of Civitas, said the Government had a reputation for "scheming and manipulation", adding: "I think the Government knew perfectly well in 2002/03 that it would be very helpful to say 'sorry we cannot go back beyond this date' because they did not want a consistent historical series."
Mr Green, who was a member of a Home Office Crime Statistics Review Group, which in 2006 recommended improvements in the collection of the crime figures, added: "It is very revealing and fits intuitively with what many people feel and what many people have been saying, if anecdotal.
"For people to feel that violent crime is going up and to be told they are suffering from moral panic has always been of some concern."
In a major speech on crime last week, Mr Brown said: "Crime is falling. Fact. Down by more than a third since 1997. Fact. That’s 6 million fewer crimes each year. Fact. Almost 1 million fewer homes burgled. Fact. Almost 1 and a half million fewer violent crimes. Fact."
He went on to claim the Conservatives had "cultivated" fears by abusing official statistics and claiming society was broken.
He insisted that crime had come down under Labour but his own Government's figures show some forms of offences, including violence, were still on the rise.
But figures last November showed that the number of violent attacks committed by strangers had hit its highest level for at least a decade, now standing at the equivalent of 2,896 people every day. Strangers are responsible for half of all violent crime.
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said: "Chris Grayling has tried to get cover for his dodgy use of crime statistics and has failed.
"As Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the UK Statistics Authority, states, the British Crime Survey is widely regarded as the most accurate way of recording crime levels,
"This clearly shows a reduction in violent crime of 41 per cent since 1997."