Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Immigrants Protesting word "Illegal" rather be called "undocumented"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

    Good1
    I still support people NOT having children out of wedlock, but I believe holding illegals to that standard when we don't hold our own children to it is extreme.
    Why? We don't expell people for committing crimes, yet you seem to have no problem with the provisions of my proposals that do exactly that for non-citizens, so clearly your reason is not that you hold the principle that holding non-citizens to standards we don't hold our own to is extreme because that is exactly what expelling them for the commission of any crime does. The difference? We do not even have the option to expell citizens for such actions, if we could, I would very much be open to a debate on whether we should. But we DO have that option where immigrants are concerned.

    Let me put the proposition to you this way. Given that so many of our social and economic pathologies can be traced largely to single parent families, why shouldn't we, in our immigration policies, seek to minimize that damage being exacerbated by people who do not have a constitutoinal right to be here in the first place; who, unlike actual citizens, we CAN do something about.?

    As for it being harsh, take a look at the damage inflicted on our society by single parenthood and tell me again it is harsh to tell people who have no right to be here they have to leave if they engage in such activities which clearly harm our society.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      I can't believe I agree with you on something! LOL.(looks up so as to be sure the roof is not collapsing)

      But what bothers me the most is the fact that we have done this song and dance before, under Pres. Reagan. And now, we are gonna do it again! When does it end? That is the question. Because so far all we are doing is allowing them to come and stay, and take american jobs in construction, driving americans out of business(like my son in law) and pulling down wages in certain fields of work.

      So far the way of addressing illegal entry into our nation is to wait a few years until they number in the 10s of millions, and then give em some sort of amnesty. But we don't ever solve the problem. This effectively gives us a congress that is in actuality perfectly fine with millions more coming. Congress has shirked its responsibility, and deserve to be shown the door, fired. What other job is there that if you do not perform it correctly, you are not shown the door?

      When some say that we cannot stop it, this attitude best not be taken into a war, because it gives certainty to a total defeat. I do not believe we cannot put an end to it. We have not ended it because congress will not end it. They won't go after the carrots because those carrots are business, and business is more sacred than the rule of law, and the NCC lobbies for cheap illegal labor. If it is good for business, it is good for america is the crux of our economic problems today. And so the repubs want to scratch the back of business, and the dems want to aid in the changing demographics which helps them out tremendously. And more than one rich dem has hired help that they get cheaper when done by illegal aliens.

      In the end this illegal immigration problem is caused by carrots of business, the desire to change demographics, and men in congress refusing to do their jobs and being responsible in their legislation.That the terms used to denote them is being attacked is a "tell" of what lies in the future. It is once again Howdy Doody time.
      I'm not sure how to act, BD. I had to re-read your post a couple of times to make sure I really do agree with everything you wrote. NEITHER side of the aisle wants to end the issue. Your observation about carrying "we cannot end it" into a war is spot on and, IMO, we carried that mantra into the war on drugs with those same, predictable results. I also remember the amnesty that Reagan sponsored during his presidency: I was against that one too and so has been every political rag from FAIR to Politico as well as a ton of Americans, both natural and naturalized. My guess is, today's liberal is as uncomfortable supporting something Reagan did as yesterday's conservative was opposing it. OF course, I'm sure there were exceptions (and are exceptions).

      Anyway, it's been a long time coming, but it's good to finally agree with you on something.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
        Why? We don't expell people for committing crimes, yet you seem to have no problem with the provisions of my proposals that do exactly that for non-citizens, so clearly your reason is not that you hold the principle that holding non-citizens to standards we don't hold our own to is extreme because that is exactly what expelling them for the commission of any crime does. The difference? We do not even have the option to expell citizens for such actions, if we could, I would very much be open to a debate on whether we should. But we DO have that option where immigrants are concerned.

        Let me put the proposition to you this way. Given that so many of our social and economic pathologies can be traced largely to single parent families, why shouldn't we, in our immigration policies, seek to minimize that damage being exacerbated by people who do not have a constitutoinal right to be here in the first place; who, unlike actual citizens, we CAN do something about.?

        As for it being harsh, take a look at the damage inflicted on our society by single parenthood and tell me again it is harsh to tell people who have no right to be here they have to leave if they engage in such activities which clearly harm our society.
        I understand your reasons, Marcus. I simply don't agree with them on this point.

        NOT that I wouldn't LOVE to hold our young people to a standard like that in this country: I think that would be great. I'm just not willing to fight that war that I don't believe we'll win. I like most of the rest of your suggestions, you'll just have to be satisfied with that.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

          Good1
          I understand your reasons, Marcus. I simply don't agree with them on this point.

          NOT that I wouldn't LOVE to hold our young people to a standard like that in this country: I think that would be great. I'm just not willing to fight that war that I don't believe we'll win. I like most of the rest of your suggestions, you'll just have to be satisfied with that.
          We can't fight that war with our own citizens because there is no way to expel them from our country, we CAN do so with non-Citizens. Given your stated reason (holding immigrants to a different standard) is clearly not the real reason you oppose this (since you don't apply that same reasoning to expelling them for committing crimes), I just want to know why you think we should not expel those people who we CAN expel for engaging in behavoirs that are detrimental to society?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
            I am as conservative as they come, and I do not oppose some sort of path to legalization of those who are here, but ONLY after having secured the border so that it is not an ongoing problem.

            I have posted elsewhere and repeatedly my idea for what constitutes a "balanced" approach to "comprehensive" immigration reform.

            1. The "Big Tall Fence, with Big Wide Gates" policy. Anyone seeking to come to this country for opportunity, who is an otherwise law abiding citizen of their own country (no criminal record) may come here for that purpose. They should be liable for all taxes but until they become citizens shall be ineligible from receiving any government benefit or consideration (i.e. in-state tuitions, unemployment compensation, social security, etc., etc.)

            2. Anyone committing a criminal misdemeanor, shall, upon conviction be permanently expelled from the country, enver allowed back in. Those convicted of felonies shall be expelled upon completion of their sentences

            3. It shall be a felony for anyone to be in this country without having properly registered and the sentence shall be a term of three years, no parole, and they shall be expelled and permanently barred from reentry upon completion of their sentences.

            4. Children of non-citizens shall not be U.S. citizens, and immigrant in this country who has a child out of wedlock shall be expelled.

            4. To become citizens, they must reside continuously (leaving for no more than two months at a time and no more than 1 year cumulatively) for a period of ten years before becoming eligible for citizenship

            5. They must have a GED, be proficient in written and spoken English, and be gainfully employed to become citizens, and pass a citizenship test

            6. To establish legal residence, those who are already here illegally as of a certain date will be required to register (meeting the same standards above). They will be liable for all back taxes and a have to pay a $5,000 fine. They will also be ineligible to ever become citizens, instead being granted permanent legal residency, unless upon commission of a misdemeanor or felony per the above

            I think that is very fair, comprehensive, and strikes a balance between the moral hazard of rewarding those who flouted our laws and soveriegnty with an utterly undeserved "path to citizenship" while pragmatically dealing with the fact that they are here and it is not feasible to round them up and throw them out.
            My thoughts.

            1. The "Big Tall Fence, with Big Wide Gates" policy. Anyone seeking to come to this country for opportunity, who is an otherwise law abiding citizen of their own country (no criminal record) may come here for that purpose. They should be liable for all taxes but until they become citizens shall be ineligible from receiving any government benefit or consideration (i.e. in-state tuitions, unemployment compensation, social security, etc., etc.)

            Agreed on most aspects. Admittees must have clean records of conduct we would deem serious and/or repetitive misdemeanors and certainly no felonies. I wouldn't make it an entire open door for legal immigration but one based on the nation's needs and other practical considerations. We couldn't absorb a billion people, but it should be generous, timely, efficient and tailored to address our needs and other factors that drive immigration to the US. I absolutely agree that taxes must be paid and I'd also continue selective service requirements and the policy of not generally permitting dole and requiring self sufficiency. I'd expand the latter part to include refraining from having US citizen children on dole apart from maybe emergency services and other compelling services beyond their control, e.g., US citizen child born with severe medical problems or due to injury. If immigrants can't care for their children--and especially if bearing children they can't afford--then they're still a burden and that's not desirous.

            2. Anyone committing a criminal misdemeanor, shall, upon conviction be permanently expelled from the country, enver allowed back in. Those convicted of felonies shall be expelled upon completion of their sentences

            Agreed in principle. We already have such laws, although I'd tighten them in certain aspects such as the DUI loophole that allows immigrants to get piles of simple DUIs and not be on a mandatory deportation list. I'd like 'misdemeanor' defined as we already do for federal immigration purposes because states can stick all sorts of labels on things. I wouldn't want someone who gets a periodic speeding ticket to get deported because it's labelled a misdemeanor in a certain place. Maybe I'd say 'any offence that carries the possibility of more than 1 year in prison' etc. Habitual minor infractions, however, should also be made removable.

            3. It shall be a felony for anyone to be in this country without having properly registered and the sentence shall be a term of three years, no parole, and they shall be expelled and permanently barred from reentry upon completion of their sentences.

            Agreed in principle. I don't know if that high a mandatory is wise given cost and resources, but definitely it should be criminalised if we are talking about wilful conduct of an adult who created his/her own situation in violation of the laws. It's why I don't like the term 'illegal immigrant/alien.' That's because it's not actually a crime to be in the US without authorisation, and that's the US's fault that also sends the wrong signal and incentive to do just that.

            4. Children of non-citizens shall not be U.S. citizens, and immigrant in this country who has a child out of wedlock shall be expelled.

            That's going to be held unconstitutional for certain on the former given the 14th Amendment if born in the US and very possibly on the latter one too given the illegitimacy distinction that courts aren't fond of tolerating anymore. IMO, it should be based upon whether or not the immigrant can not only afford to take care of themselves (or have a sponsor do so) but also any children they have whether citizen or not. If the immigrant is an undue social burden on that score, they should be removed. They can either leave any US citizen children in custody of others willing to take them and support them or remove with their children and the children can return when adults if they so choose. I'd also end the loophole in certain laws right now that allow Mexican residents in border areas with US citizen children to attend US schools and receive Medicaid and other benefits by sending them across the border unless such parents work and pay taxes in the US. I'd make that a blanket policy for any US citizen children ordinarily resident abroad. Such children should be tended by their nation of actual residence by parents who contribute to that nation in taxes. They can come to the US when turning 18 if they so choose as citizens, but as minors they do not live in the US and their parents are not ordinarily contributing to its costs.

            4. To become citizens, they must reside continuously (leaving for no more than two months at a time and no more than 1 year cumulatively) for a period of ten years before becoming eligible for citizenship

            No argument there or any close variant thereof.

            5. They must have a GED, be proficient in written and spoken English, and be gainfully employed to become citizens, and pass a citizenship test

            Absolutely spot on. I would accept temporary unemployment akin to what we have with citizens if they have a good work record and it's due to causes beyond their control or other reasonable excuse (layoff in recession or closure, unlawful firing, etc) and they're actively seeking employment, they have established roots (long term residency, US citizen/resident wife and children, etc) and good cause is shown they are desirous immigrants who won't pose undue harm to being a social burden more so than a benefit.

            6. To establish legal residence, those who are already here illegally as of a certain date will be required to register (meeting the same standards above). They will be liable for all back taxes and a have to pay a $5,000 fine. They will also be ineligible to ever become citizens, instead being granted permanent legal residency, unless upon commission of a misdemeanor or felony per the above

            Generally agreed except for the never becoming citizens part. They should be given a long probationary period then a green card and be eligible for citizenship provided all those who filed legally before they did get processed should they want to become citizens. IMO there's a state interest in getting immigrants to become formally American if this is where they choose to live out their lives, including but not limited to the full burdens and obligations of citizenship besides benefits, getting them and their children emotionally and legally attached and integrated into the US as full members thereof. In fact, I'm generally opposed to people living permanently on a green card. If one wishes to make the US their home, they should be expected to eventually formally join the club for all benefits and burdens. The US is not a hostel or a flop house for travelling strangers having no stake in the place other than convenience...it's a nation that needs a people to commit to it existing and thriving as a nation.
            Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 03-06-2013, 09:39 PM.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

              Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
              We can't fight that war with our own citizens because there is no way to expel them from our country, we CAN do so with non-Citizens. Given your stated reason (holding immigrants to a different standard) is clearly not the real reason you oppose this (since you don't apply that same reasoning to expelling them for committing crimes), I just want to know why you think we should not expel those people who we CAN expel for engaging in behavoirs that are detrimental to society?
              Well, rather like O'Sullivan said above:

              It is not a crime in the United States to have sex outside of marriage.

              Further, we do punish American Citizens who commit crimes. So your attempt to conflate the two "because we can" is what I do not support and my stated reason of holding illegal immigrants to a different standard is clearly "the real reason" at least for me.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                I'm not sure how to act, BD. I had to re-read your post a couple of times to make sure I really do agree with everything you wrote. NEITHER side of the aisle wants to end the issue. Your observation about carrying "we cannot end it" into a war is spot on and, IMO, we carried that mantra into the war on drugs with those same, predictable results. I also remember the amnesty that Reagan sponsored during his presidency: I was against that one too and so has been every political rag from FAIR to Politico as well as a ton of Americans, both natural and naturalized. My guess is, today's liberal is as uncomfortable supporting something Reagan did as yesterday's conservative was opposing it. OF course, I'm sure there were exceptions (and are exceptions).

                Anyway, it's been a long time coming, but it's good to finally agree with you on something.
                Well waging war against something like drugs, is not exactly the same war waged against illegal immigration. Wars against vice have never been won, other wars indeed have.

                You may as well wage a war against sex. You can never win it. Drug use, people getting high, isn't the same as people coming into the us in the millions and waging a war against that.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                  Originally posted by Texan View Post
                  What would I be called if I swam down into Mexico and expected welfare, education in English for my kids, and free medical care?
                  Dead

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                    This article says it better and more clearly that anything I could add.

                    I am Not Simply 'Documented': New Language for an Old Problem | Independent Journal Review

                    This morning on the news I watched the host talk about “immigrant rights”, “path to citizenship” and “bringing people out of the shadows”. As a genuine, legal immigrant I find these terms not only offensive, but hurtful as well. They completely negate the effort made by myself and others like me to be Americans fully and legally. The time, the money, the stress…we did it because we love this country so much we wanted to be a part of the American Dream. Now I am being asked to openly welcome millions of people from around the world who began their first interaction with America by breaking the law. Even though they’ve begun as criminals, people like me who honored the law are asked to overlook their crimes.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                      Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                      This article says it better and more clearly that anything I could add.

                      I am Not Simply 'Documented': New Language for an Old Problem | Independent Journal Review

                      Well, I reckon that crime pays. We have films that illustrate as much. When I was growing up, the films made sure we didn't give folks the wrong idea, and so crime never paid, but took away. Odd, unsettled times we are in today. The rule of law in certain areas is not worth the paper its written on. And neither will any new immigration law that is written. We don't go full out to enforce the current ones. So what is to change?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                        O'Sullivan Bere
                        Agreed on most aspects. Admittees must have clean records of conduct we would deem serious and/or repetitive misdemeanors and certainly no felonies. I wouldn't make it an entire open door for legal immigration but one based on the nation's needs and other practical considerations. We couldn't absorb a billion people, but it should be generous, timely, efficient and tailored to address our needs and other factors that drive immigration to the US. I absolutely agree that taxes must be paid and I'd also continue selective service requirements and the policy of not generally permitting dole and requiring self sufficiency. I'd expand the latter part to include refraining from having US citizen children on dole apart from maybe emergency services and other compelling services beyond their control, e.g., US citizen child born with severe medical problems or due to injury. If immigrants can't care for their children--and especially if bearing children they can't afford--then they're still a burden and that's not desirous.
                        I would not be opposed in principle to a cap on the number allowed in per year, but that would have to be coupled with a system for ranking applicants (college educated before those who don't even know English for example) on the level of desirability and even from where we prefer they come.

                        O'Sullivan Bere
                        Agreed in principle. We already have such laws, although I'd tighten them in certain aspects such as the DUI loophole that allows immigrants to get piles of simple DUIs and not be on a mandatory deportation list. I'd like 'misdemeanor' defined as we already do for federal immigration purposes because states can stick all sorts of labels on things. I wouldn't want someone who gets a periodic speeding ticket to get deported because it's labeled a misdemeanor in a certain place. Maybe I'd say 'any offence that carries the possibility of more than 1 year in prison' etc. Habitual minor infractions, however, should also be made removable.
                        Again, not opposed in principle to your suggestion, but also not at all phased by the notion of throwing their asses out for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Coming here and being here is one of the greatest privileges that can be bestowed on those in the rest of the world and I have no problem being incredibly strict in sending that message.

                        O'Sullivan Bere
                        Agreed in principle. I don't know if that high a mandatory is wise given cost and resources, but definitely it should be criminalised if we are talking about wilful conduct of an adult who created his/her own situation in violation of the laws. It's why I don't like the term 'illegal immigrant/alien.' That's because it's not actually a crime to be in the US without authorisation, and that's the US's fault that also sends the wrong signal and incentive to do just that.
                        My whole point is to explicitly make it a crime (a serious one) to be here in contravention of our laws. And the whole point of severe penalties is to change the "signal and incentive" and I think you will find that a harsh enough penalty will act as a very strong deterrent (limiting the number who ultimately need to be incarcerated).

                        O'Sullivan Bere
                        That's going to be held unconstitutional for certain on the former given the 14th Amendment if born in the US and very possibly on the latter one too given the illegitimacy distinction that courts aren't fond of tolerating anymore. IMO, it should be based upon whether or not the immigrant can not only afford to take care of themselves (or have a sponsor do so) but also any children they have whether citizen or not. If the immigrant is an undue social burden on that score, they should be removed. They can either leave any US citizen children in custody of others willing to take them and support them or remove with their children and the children can return when adults if they so choose. I'd also end the loophole in certain laws right now that allow Mexican residents in border areas with US citizen children to attend US schools and receive Medicaid and other benefits by sending them across the border unless such parents work and pay taxes in the US. I'd make that a blanket policy for any US citizen children ordinarily resident abroad. Such children should be tended by their nation of actual residence by parents who contribute to that nation in taxes. They can come to the US when turning 18 if they so choose as citizens, but as minors they do not live in the US and their parents are not ordinarily contributing to its costs.
                        I think it is high time to have an amendment pulling back on birthright citizenship, I think given the central role family ought to take in our society, Jus sanguinis should be the norm rather than jus soli

                        O'Sullivan Bere
                        Generally agreed except for the never becoming citizens part. They should be given a long probationary period then a green card and be eligible for citizenship provided all those who filed legally before they did get processed should they want to become citizens. IMO there's a state interest in getting immigrants to become formally American if this is where they choose to live out their lives, including but not limited to the full burdens and obligations of citizenship besides benefits, getting them and their children emotionally and legally attached and integrated into the US as full members thereof. In fact, I'm generally opposed to people living permanently on a green card. If one wishes to make the US their home, they should be expected to eventually formally join the club for all benefits and burdens. The US is not a hostel or a flop house for travelling strangers having no stake in the place other than convenience...it's a nation that needs a people to commit to it existing and thriving as a nation.
                        With some very limited exceptions (those serving in the military being the only one that comes to mind) I am quite adamant on this one. They broke our laws and disrespected our sovereignty by coming here. They should get down on their knees and kiss our feet for not rounding them up and throwing them out, and instead giving them an incredible blessing (a chance to reside here permanently and legally). I would only permit them to otherwise become citizens if they leave for at least a year and come back in under the criteria set above. Again, mere legal residency is an incredible privilege (one they have no moral or legal entitlement or expectation to) and that alone they should be thankful for. And you know what, any of them that think that is not enough, just don't get this country enough to be deserving of citizenship in the first place, regardless of how they came here.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                          Well some of these people are from the "Mexica". This was a Aztec tribe that migrated to Mexico from the United States. They came from a place they called Aztlean, which is probally Cahokia in Missiouri. About 90 percent of the Aztec language is found in the Western USA native american tribes. But now just being from Mexico does not mean a person has ancestry in USA.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: Immigrants Protesting word &quot;Illegal&quot; rather be called &quot;undocumented&quot;

                            Now we also have to remember that people from Mexico is also "European" blood as well. Like George lopez and larry david dna tested and Larry David showed more native american than lopez.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?

                            Working...
                            X