billvon 2,475 #251 September 23, 2010 >So, do we enforce existing immigration laws until we can come up with a >real, workable solution We enforce the laws we have while working to make them better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #252 September 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote my list was better ! Your list was ridiculous starting with item #1. We've been over that. i presume by that you mean you're opposed to u.s. americans having first priority for u.s. jobs ? U.S. Americans? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII&feature=related There's a lot more to America than the United States of America. I'm sure you know that..............now. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. As the only country in both the continents of America with America in it's name, it's assumed. I took Spanish so know they have a separate term, estados unidenses, and other languages may as well, but there really isn't a separate term in the English language. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #253 September 23, 2010 Quote>So, do we enforce existing immigration laws until we can come up with a >real, workable solution We enforce the laws we have while working to make them better. So the last part of the statement is more true for you then? you forgot half of it. QuoteSo, do we enforce existing immigration laws until we can come up with a real, workable solution or do we just ignore the issue until it goes away? I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #254 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteOne can be a resident alien for tax purposes but a nonresident alien for immigration purposes. This is simply not true. Resident and non-resident aliens are IRS definitions. They are only used for tax purposes. You can be a nonimmigrant resident alient, just as you can be a nonimmigrant non residential alien. Just as you can be either an immigrant resident alien or immigrant non-resident alien. QuoteThe fourth category (none of the above) presumably consists of people who are in a legal limbo somewhere between nonresidence and residence. No such thing. If you are a resident alien or non-resident alien, it by definition means you are legally allowed to work in the US. That is not necessarily true either.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #255 September 23, 2010 >So the last part of the statement is more true for you then? Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #256 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuote No. I mean they already do. Illegals can't legally work at all. So, do we enforce existing immigration laws until we can come up with a real, workable solution or do we just ignore the issue until it goes away? Enforcing existing laws would, in fact, go a long way toward fixing the issue. If illegals knew they wouldn't be able to make a living here, they'd have very little incentive to come. Businesses that hire illegals should be fined heavily. Businesses that contract out labor to other businesses who knowingly hire illegals (for instance WalMart), also share the blame and should also be fined. It's the way business works in the US that has caused the problem.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #257 September 23, 2010 Quote>So the last part of the statement is more true for you then? Nope. So why ar eyou against any help that a state would provide in promoting further success upholding federal immigration laws.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,154 #258 September 23, 2010 QuoteThat is not necessarily true either. Which part isn't true? And why do you think somebody from micronesia, who has been legally in the US for 25 years, working and paying taxes, has less rights to a job than a foreign exchange student? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #259 September 23, 2010 >So why ar eyou against any help that a state would provide in promoting >further success upholding federal immigration laws. I'm not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #260 September 23, 2010 Quote>So why ar eyou against any help that a state would provide in promoting >further success upholding federal immigration laws. I'm not. Have you not spoken out against the Arizona's attempts to help?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #261 September 23, 2010 >Have you not spoken out against the Arizona's attempts to help? I disagree with some parts of Arizona's recent law, yes. However, I am all for states upholding federal immigration laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #262 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuote>So why ar eyou against any help that a state would provide in promoting >further success upholding federal immigration laws. I'm not. Have you not spoken out against the Arizona's attempts to help? There is a right way and a wrong way. A lot of what Arizona is doing infringes on the rights of US citizens. That's the wrong way. It doesn't matter how "popular" it makes a politician in the polls. It doesn't matter how much "the people" vote for it either. If it goes against the US Constitution and infringes on the rights of US citizens; it's wrong. That's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #263 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>So why ar eyou against any help that a state would provide in promoting >further success upholding federal immigration laws. I'm not. Have you not spoken out against the Arizona's attempts to help? There is a right way and a wrong way. A lot of what Arizona is doing infringes on the rights of US citizens. That's the wrong way. It doesn't matter how "popular" it makes a politician in the polls. It doesn't matter how much "the people" vote for it either. If it goes against the US Constitution and infringes on the rights of US citizens; it's wrong. That's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #264 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteThat's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking. Nope. Instead of cops hassling US citizens by asking to "see their papers", have the cops bust the companies that employ illegal workers. Completely constitutional laws already exist, they're just not being enforced. There's no need to create a bunch of unconstitutional ones. The "problem" with that is, businesses WANT illegal workers . . . so it's pretty hard to get the Republicans to support that. It's much easier for them to just whip up hate. This way the businesses have the best of both worlds; cheap and disposable labor and no need to actually take responsibility for causing the problem in the first place.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #265 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking. Nope. Instead of cops hassling US citizens by asking to "see their papers", have the cops bust the companies that employ illegal workers. Completely constitutional laws already exist, they're just not being enforced. There's no need to create a bunch of unconstitutional ones. There is more than one problem. Going with just a single fix will not work. You have to hit the problem from several directions to halt it. It's a 3 dimentional problem and you are only trying to use a 2 dimensional fix.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #266 September 23, 2010 Quote Quote Quote That's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking. Nope. Instead of cops hassling US citizens by asking to "see their papers", have the cops bust the companies that employ illegal workers. Completely constitutional laws already exist, they're just not being enforced. There's no need to create a bunch of unconstitutional ones. The "problem" with that is, businesses WANT illegal workers . . . so it's pretty hard to get the Republicans to support that. It's much easier for them to just whip up hate. This way the businesses have the best of both worlds; cheap and disposable labor and no need to actually take responsibility for causing the problem in the first place. So sorta like the Dems causing health care to become so expensive and rather than fixing that, forcing a national health insurance plan at everyone. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,154 #267 September 23, 2010 Which part isn't true? And why do you think somebody from micronesia, who has been legally in the US for 25 years, working and paying taxes, has less rights to a job than a foreign exchange student? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #268 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking. Nope. Instead of cops hassling US citizens by asking to "see their papers", have the cops bust the companies that employ illegal workers. Completely constitutional laws already exist, they're just not being enforced. There's no need to create a bunch of unconstitutional ones. There is more than one problem. Going with just a single fix will not work. You have to hit the problem from several directions to halt it. It's a 3 dimentional problem and you are only trying to use a 2 dimensional fix. It is technologically and financially unfeasible to create a wall around the US. That's not a realistic option. There's a good reason why the Wall of China is so long; it doesn't actually work. "Invaders" have a tendency to just go around it or breech it, so they kept repairing it and making it longer and longer. It just didn't work. Operating under a police state is also not an option. Just because some folks in Arizona think it is, doesn't make it so. You have to remove the incentive for them to come here to begin with. You can do that in a couple of ways. You can make their home countries not be shit holes; not really a viable option considering the state of our economy. Or, you can ensure they can't make a living here. It may seem like it's only approaching the problem with one idea, but it's one idea we currently have at our disposal and is constitutional, yet it's not being pursued.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #269 September 23, 2010 Quote So sorta like the Dems causing health care to become so expensive and rather than fixing that, forcing a national health insurance plan at everyone. I question the validity of your statement, but that's a different debate for a different thread.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #270 September 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat's the problem with Arizona's laws. Not that there isn't a problem with illegal immigration, it's how they want to go about "fixing" it. So instead of patching the hole, let the dam burst because you didn't have the right brand of mortar to fix the problem the specific way you wanted when the dam was leaking. Nope. Instead of cops hassling US citizens by asking to "see their papers", have the cops bust the companies that employ illegal workers. Completely constitutional laws already exist, they're just not being enforced. There's no need to create a bunch of unconstitutional ones. There is more than one problem. Going with just a single fix will not work. You have to hit the problem from several directions to halt it. It's a 3 dimentional problem and you are only trying to use a 2 dimensional fix. It is technologically and financially unfeasible to create a wall around the US. That's not a realistic option. There's a good reason why the Wall of China is so long; it doesn't actually work. "Invaders" have a tendency to just go around it or breech it, so they kept repairing it and making it longer and longer. It just didn't work. Operating under a police state is also not an option. You have to remove the incentive for them to come here to begin with. You can do that in a couple of ways. You can make their home countries not be shit holes; not really a viable option considering the state of our economy. Or, you can ensure they can't make a living here. It may seem like it's only approaching the problem with one idea, but it's one idea we currently have at our disposal and is constitutional, yet it's not being pursued. Why is it our responsibility to "make their country not be shit holes"? Not VIABLE? WTF? If we would stop all the foreign aid we give away, it would make a pretty good dent in our debt! It is not the time to be nice and friendly. It is the time to take care of our own.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,154 #271 September 23, 2010 Which part isn't true? And why do you think somebody from micronesia, who has been legally in the US for 25 years, working and paying taxes, has less rights to a job than a foreign exchange student? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #272 September 23, 2010 Re-read what you just wrote. Go back and re-read what I wrote, then just for good measure, re-read again what you wrote. A semicolon can be used to connect two sentences that the author wishes to link more closely. As such, I'm saying it's not viable for us to raise their standard of living at this time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #273 September 23, 2010 QuoteThis is simply not true. Resident and non-resident aliens are IRS definitions. They are only used for tax purposes. The term "resident alien", at least, is used in an immigration context as well: USCIS - Resident Alien"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #274 September 23, 2010 Quote Quote So sorta like the Dems causing health care to become so expensive and rather than fixing that, forcing a national health insurance plan at everyone. I question the validity of your statement, but that's a different debate for a different thread. 6 letters: EMTALA Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #275 September 23, 2010 QuoteWhich part isn't true? And why do you think somebody from micronesia, who has been legally in the US for 25 years, working and paying taxes, has less rights to a job than a foreign exchange student? One is here to be educated, the other for work. Priorities.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
