Page 3 of 24
Posted on January 8 at 11:43 a.m.
The cost of sending illegal residents home would be high... LA Times estimates $285 billion or more.
On the one hand, that is much less than the cost of the Iraq + Afghanistan wars. On the other, it is still a lot of money... where will it come from?
On Protest Planned over <em>News-Press</em> Headline
Posted on January 7 at 4:44 p.m.
pod14... you bet, Won Kim is her grandfather... see the resemblance?
Here she is as Princess Libido, in a chinese-inspired costume...
Posted on January 7 at 4:30 p.m.
No, Raymond Morua made the price much higher than it should have been.
On Dies Family Awarded $2.5 Million Settlement
Posted on January 7 at 4:20 p.m.
loonpt, what an amazing dynamic range you show...
First, residing here without adhering to our residency laws is a far more serious matter than going 2 or 3 mph above the speed limit. At the very least a large portion of illegal residents don't pay social security, income tax (although some do), get car insurance, etc. They never can vote, participate in our civil life fully, etc. It is a much bigger deal than exceeding the speed limit.
Second, you have verified Godwin's law, or, Reductio ad Hitlerum. The conditions for US illegal immigrants today are nothing like the conditions of the ghettos of central Europe; we don't have ovens to execute masses of illegal immigrants. Sorry, the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, LGBT & disabled communities, and resistance fighters, of the 1930's under German control were treated a trillion times worse than current US illegals.
My respect for US laws stems from the fact that we have a damned good political system. It is by no means perfect but comparing it to Nazi Germany is absurd. As I said, the best course is to obey the law and lobby intensely for changes you deem important. Sometimes, like for at least the LBG community, real progress happens.
That 10 million or so illegal immigrants have not obeyed our laws has created a tremendous problem: right off the bat, square zero of the argument, is disrespect for our country and for all its law abiding citizens. Comparing the law abiding citizens to Nazis and other racists just digs the hole deeper.
Posted on January 7 at 11:53 a.m.
Matt Dies is the one who put a price on his principals. The US Government gets sued 100,000's of thousands of time a year and has detailed statistics and knows the cost winning on principal.
Matt Dies just wanted some bucks, and most likely doesn't know a median from a mode.
If the US Government always fought to the bitter end taxpayers would rise up over those costs.
That person who would have taken the car keys was busy doing other nanny tasks, JarvisJarvis.
Posted on January 7 at 8:51 a.m.
Take your concern to Matt Dies, who signed paperwork agreeing there was no liability not the part of the US Government or Capps. He could have refused to sign... like Robert Kearns. But that Dies did sign proved he was not in this thing for principles, but for filthy lucre.
The US Government does the math and knows it would have won in the long run, but at a cost far exceeding $2.5 million. Cost times probability of the first jury trial supporting Dies was a few million. Simple business decision to save money.
Posted on January 7 at 8:01 a.m.
And the proof that Capps did not check out everything about Morua is ____?
And the proof that Capps did not simply give a US military veteran the benefit of the doubt is ______?
Thank goodness the US Military took U S Grant back in after drinking related problems early in his career; he got a well-deserved second chance. He is the greatest US General in history; that is why his statue is dead center on the mall between the Capitol and the Washington Memorial.
Or course Morua tarnished his service, and of course he is living with the consequences.
And of course Matt Dies has signed, freely without coercion, an agreement that said neither Lois Capps nor the US Government has any liability for Morua's actions. Facts are facts, and neither Capps nor the US Government is responsible for Morua's actions, according to Matt Dies.
Posted on January 7 at 6:56 a.m.
So the government should be responsible for every single action by any government employee anywhere at anytime? The government employee is not responsible for their own behavior?
The government is the sugar daddy who is responsible for everything that goes on?
Got any other great suggestions?
Posted on January 7 at 5:41 a.m.
Excuse me, but not for Matt Dies' greed for the filthy lucre there would be no case. Period.
Posted on January 7 at 5:39 a.m.
Citizenship by birth was certainly the objective of many on the Union side during the Civil War, although perhaps many in non-Union States still don't recognize who won that war. The US Supreme Court supported the original Union interpretation in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898. From my own family stories, lots of folks on the Union side wanted citizenship by birth to forever cease the formation of a permanent underclass like the slaves were; the clause in the 14th amendment about `subject to jurisdiction' was mainly about Native Americans; in 1865 vast amounts of what is now the US were not under US jurisdiction yet. Now that land is.
Loonpt, roads (referred to by your link) and utilities were indeed once provided by the private sector. There were multiple private water companies in Santa Barbara and in my hometown of Oakland a private owner for the main road along the waterfront. A total mess in both cases. Thank goodness the government negotiated with eminent domain a seizure with due compensation of the Oakland waterfront road. Thank goodness utilities are in general no longer private owned; monopolies are even worse than public utilities.
Sorry, there are cases where the common good trumps private property rights. Even drug use inside your own home has public consequences, for example, simple availability of drugs leads to unintended consequences of drugs finding their way into sewers and inadvertently into food production and other unforeseen consequences.
I would have no problem with every country in the world getting rid of its citizenship laws. They haven't. Until they do, the laws of our and all other countries should be respected by all immigrants.
The argument that illegal immigration is justified by economic opportunities here is not a useful justification. Lots of Wall Street folks justify breaking the law for economic reasons.
In some cases the US provides a refuge for those who are persecuted in their home countries. The problem there: literally billions of people in the world could justify immigration to the US on this basis. There will always be more persecuted people than we could ever expect to host in the US, and so our immigration system will be an exercise in managing scarcity. It always will be easy to satirize, as your earlier link did.
There are lot of people who have applied for immigration to the US since the last amnesty in 1986, and who have been denied, and who have not come illegally to the US. I would offer them residency in an orderly way prior to offering anyone who came here illegally residency. That is simple fairness and respect for our laws.
Illegal immigrants are usually wonderful, hard-working, deserving people. But so are lots of people who break the law. If we stop enforcing the law in general, I think we are in for serious chaos.