Let's fix the border crisis in the morning (Page 11): Most Stockholders are average Americans who have these investments as part of their union pension fund of public employee...

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Barracuda2020 wrote:

I wasn't speaking of them. Stockholders are only interested in the bottom line and not on the broken backs of the people on how it got there. There are healthy good profits and then there are the other ways.

Most Stockholders are average Americans who have these investments as part of their union pension fund of public employee retirement. Maybe even you have some money invested this way. They aren't like Warren Buffet who wants to give away his billions through Bill & Melinda Gates' Foundation because he doesn't need it all. Let's just take the stock away from all these evil back-breakers living off the sweat of others, LOL.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

zillaorange wrote:

Critical Critic, how can American law protect I*****l I*******ts ? They broke American I*********n L*w to get here ! On that basis alone, they ARE NOT protected by the 14th Amendment ! Why is it "ILLEGAL" is dropped, overlooked, for these people ?

Thank you for asking, zillaorange.

”On July 5, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented or i*****l i*******ts should be immediately forced to leave the United States without any court review. “When people, with or without children, enter our Country, they must be told to leave without our… country being forced to endure a long and costly trial. Tell the people ‘OUT,’ and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of ‘judges’ does not work and is not acceptable.” So, are undocumented immigrants entitled to their day in court?

Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to “persons” or “people.” However, “citizens” enjoy additional rights, such as working, v****g in national and state e******ns and, in some states, drivers’ licenses. And under U.S. law, those who have valid grounds for asylum are entitled to a hearing.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War, specifically states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Generally, citizens receive rights such as the right to v**e and work and additional privileges granted by state and national laws. Citing the constitution, courts have typically bestowed rights to noncitizens based on broader concepts related to the dignity of an individual independent of national status.

That point was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning with a case in 1886 involving different treatment of laundries owned by Chinese nationals in San Francisco. Then, the court asserted “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color or of nationality.”

Nearly 100 years later, the Supreme Court cited this case and a handful of subsequent cases in its landmark 1982 decision, Plyer v. Doe, providing undocumented children the right to a public education. A Texas school district had argued that persons who have entered the U.S. illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a state even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. The high court in Plyer rejected that argument.

“Wh**ever his status under the i*********n l*ws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” Justice William Brennan said in the 5-4 Plyer decision.

In 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Reno v Flores that the courts have “well established … that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Due process is the legal concept requiring that all proceedings be fair and that an individual be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty or property. The Flores case gave rise to a 1997 settlement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days of apprehension — an arrangement that the Trump administration has so far unsuccessfully sought to modify through the courts.

In 1996, Congress passed a law that allowed for expedited removal of undocumented immigrants without a hearing, which was initially applied to apprehensions at a U.S. port of entry. Expedited removal was later expanded and applied to apprehensions of undocumented immigrants that take place within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the country. An exemption applies for those who express a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum after passing a screening process — a provision that some say the Trump administration is trying to undercut.

So, except when exemptions exist, undocumented immigrants do have due process and equal protection rights under U.S. law.”

https://lawandcrime.com/politics/aba-legal-fact-check-do-undocumented-immigrants-have-legal-rights-under-u-s-law/

zillaorange

The Critical Critic wrote:

Thank you for asking, zillaorange.

”On July 5, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented or i*****l i*******ts should be immediately forced to leave the United States without any court review. “When people, with or without children, enter our Country, they must be told to leave without our… country being forced to endure a long and costly trial. Tell the people ‘OUT,’ and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of ‘judges’ does not work and is not acceptable.” So, are undocumented immigrants entitled to their day in court?

Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to “persons” or “people.” However, “citizens” enjoy additional rights, such as working, v****g in national and state e******ns and, in some states, drivers’ licenses. And under U.S. law, those who have valid grounds for asylum are entitled to a hearing.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War, specifically states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Generally, citizens receive rights such as the right to v**e and work and additional privileges granted by state and national laws. Citing the constitution, courts have typically bestowed rights to noncitizens based on broader concepts related to the dignity of an individual independent of national status.

That point was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning with a case in 1886 involving different treatment of laundries owned by Chinese nationals in San Francisco. Then, the court asserted “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color or of nationality.”

Nearly 100 years later, the Supreme Court cited this case and a handful of subsequent cases in its landmark 1982 decision, Plyer v. Doe, providing undocumented children the right to a public education. A Texas school district had argued that persons who have entered the U.S. illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a state even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. The high court in Plyer rejected that argument.

“Wh**ever his status under the i*********n l*ws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” Justice William Brennan said in the 5-4 Plyer decision.

In 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Reno v Flores that the courts have “well established … that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Due process is the legal concept requiring that all proceedings be fair and that an individual be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty or property. The Flores case gave rise to a 1997 settlement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days of apprehension — an arrangement that the Trump administration has so far unsuccessfully sought to modify through the courts.

In 1996, Congress passed a law that allowed for expedited removal of undocumented immigrants without a hearing, which was initially applied to apprehensions at a U.S. port of entry. Expedited removal was later expanded and applied to apprehensions of undocumented immigrants that take place within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the country. An exemption applies for those who express a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum after passing a screening process — a provision that some say the Trump administration is trying to undercut.

So, except when exemptions exist, undocumented immigrants do have due process and equal protection rights under U.S. law.”

https://lawandcrime.com/politics/aba-legal-fact-check-do-undocumented-immigrants-have-legal-rights-under-u-s-law/

Thank you for asking, zillaorange. br br i ”On ... (show quote)

It always amazes me how folks can log so much info in such a short period of time. Please be informed, the info is usually good. I usually go back & check such info, like reading footnotes ! I see America today as Rome was as it destroyed itself ! Crooked politicos, biased media, print & network info. I think we're in the same boat. From searching family history, I may be of Celtic origin. The same "Open Boarder" idea of Rome was the reason it was crushed. This came about because of open boarders ! The Celts were among the "i*****l i*******ts" who brought about the demise of Rome ! We're watching America following this self-destructive pattern. Would you agree, no nation state can survive such assault ?

zillaorange

Good night, God bless B SAFE ALL

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

zillaorange wrote:

It always amazes me how folks can log so much info... (show quote)

You have a valid point, sir. To your question, yes, I would agree. However, at the same time, I would have to argue that our military today is far better equipped to repel a ground invasion than the Romans were in the 300’s.

Good night, sleep well.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

zillaorange wrote:

Just curious JFlorio, what laws of ours, re: immigration are you refering to ?

It’s BS but it is what it is. Our asylum laws. If someone steps on U.S. soil they can ask for asylum. Then we have to by Law give them due process instead of turning them around and telling them to hit the road Jack.

EconomistDon

Barracuda2020 wrote:

They are protected by the right of a fair trial, but a refugee seeking refuge is not an i*****l a***n. Yes if they are rejected and return illegally.

Let's clarify terminology. A "refugee" is someone who enters through a legal port of entry. An "i*****l a***n" is someone who climbs over the wall. Sooooo, when you say a refuge is not an i*****l a***n, you are correct. These two groups must necessarily be treated differently. Dems must stop applying "refuge" rules to law-breakers who climb over the wall.

Cuda2020

zillaorange wrote:

These I******s have gotten the boot, returned illegally & then proceed to MURDER AMERICAS !!! Your solution to this problem, semantics aside !!!

I'VE never spoken of a solution

Cuda2020

EconomistDon wrote:

Let's clarify terminology. A "refugee" is someone who enters through a legal port of entry. An "i*****l a***n" is someone who climbs over the wall. Sooooo, when you say a refuge is not an i*****l a***n, you are correct. These two groups must necessarily be treated differently. Dems must stop applying "refuge" rules to law-breakers who climb over the wall.

They have treated the refugees who have gone through the entry, shamefully that is the fact. NO ONE, no one should be kept longer than 72 hours, period, that's was the length of time these holding places were made for, with a LIMITED amount of people for health conditions. If they have to send 500, 1000 processors there to get it done then that is what we have to do. Appoint people in the military or government to do it, we're already paying their salary, we're spending and wasting tax money holding these people.

One more little diddy, it is your party who gives your power away to get this job done. What you're not realizing is that Trump will do what HIS base wants in order to get re-elected. If you folks objected and pushed to get them processed, he'd do it. He will do the opposite of wh**ever the left says whether it be right or wrong. Use your power.

Cuda2020

zillaorange wrote:

It always amazes me how folks can log so much info... (show quote)

I agree, Rome did partially implode, and also from the grab for power and greed from within, but they also fought externally, while they were in a weakened state, (something we shold consider),but not from the Celts, who defeated them was the Germanics,(Visigoth, member of a division of the Goths, one of the most important of the Germanic peoples), and they did it by not allowing any food to get into the city. People died and layed rotting in the streets.

Cuda2020

dtucker300 wrote:

Most Stockholders are average Americans who have these investments as part of their union pension fund of public employee retirement. Maybe even you have some money invested this way. They aren't like Warren Buffet who wants to give away his billions through Bill & Melinda Gates' Foundation because he doesn't need it all. Let's just take the stock away from all these evil back-breakers living off the sweat of others, LOL.

Yes, like I said that was not who I was referring to for the most part, while you have to admit if you see an increase in your dividend do you or I stop and really think about how it was done? That's just a reality, it does lie with the board members, on the hows.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Barracuda2020 wrote:

They have treated the refugees who have gone throu... (show quote)

O.K.. After 72 hours where do they go genius? How do they make it? many know no english. May not even be their children. What disease do they carry? To process you must be qualified to do that. You can't just pull the average Joe of the street. You come up with good sounding solutions that are probably not doable. You are right. We are wasting tax money holding them. Change the law so we can put them on a military t***sport and haul their ass's back to their own country. Much cheaper.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Barracuda2020 wrote:

Yes, like I said that was not who I was referring to for the most part, while you have to admit if you see an increase in your dividend do you or I stop and really think about how it was done? That's just a reality, it does lie with the board members, on the hows.

Increase in dividends is due to the companies increase in net profit or the decision of the company to slow down expenditures and increase the dividend.

EconomistDon

Barracuda2020 wrote:

They have treated the refugees who have gone throu... (show quote)

You are glossing over some key points, Barracuda. To do what you claim should be done, costs money. Trump and Republicans were trying to get that money for more than a year, but "resist and obstruct" Democrats refused. They claimed that there was NO BORDER CRISIS. Yet they couldn't stop talking about trouble at the border and blaming Trump for a border crisis "that didn't exist". Democrats finally caved in to a funding package THIS WEEK, admitting that there IS a border crisis. You do realize, I hope that it is the House of Representatives that approves spending bills --- RIGHT? And you do realize that the House is controlled by "Resist and Obstruct" Democrats who are not doing their jobs because they are too busy harassing Trump?

And one more point --- do you realize that people in those camps do not have to stay there more than 72 hours? They can leave any time they want, but they must leave in the direction from which they came -- back across the border.

Cuda2020

JFlorio wrote:

O.K.. After 72 hours where do they go genius? How do they make it? many know no english. May not even be their children. What disease do they carry? To process you must be qualified to do that. You can't just pull the average Joe of the street. You come up with good sounding solutions that are probably not doable. You are right. We are wasting tax money holding them. Change the law so we can put them on a military t***sport and haul their ass's back to their own country. Much cheaper.

Of course qualified people who also speak Spanish, but you're not hearing me, I said in the process they either get accepted or turned away, that is within our laws, and is within that 72 hour time span, I'd make it 48.

These dictatorships create upheaval all over the world, from people wanting to leave their homeland, that's the damn problem.