Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

xyz 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Illurion + 894]

37 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody cares what you think. 

see  !

You made my point !

You seem to see the world as stark,  black and white....   with you on the side of one color,  and you are against everyone who sees the world from the other color.

You see everyone for the other color as bad, and evil, and indecent.

And you say so. !

Which is very RUDE.

I see the world as very gray............   there is no black or white...  no right or wrong.......   just people trying to get by...

Most everything has pros and cons about it.    a maze to find your way through.

People make the best decisions they can.

Why are you always attacking everyone else's decisions ?

Why can't you just say "I DISAGREE" ?

Why do you have to insult, and be rude,  and demonize people when you post your idea on a subject that is different than theirs ?.

 

If you really do not care what i think.    THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE WHAT YOU THINK....?

After all,  YOU write more on this site than most everyone else.

 

The fact is that normal people care about what everyone else thinks.    They may not agree,   but they care.

 

Back in the LA riots long ago,   one of the victims said:  "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ? "

 

YOU OWE RODENT, AND TEX,  AND KIRKMAN AN APOLOGY FOR INTIMATING THAT THEY ARE "INDECENT".

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Illurion

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

It was not Trump and it was not Obama.  The law has in fact been there for many years and has even evolved over time.  But it has been up to various government entities whether or not to enforce the law.  Obama chose to enforce the law at various time during his 2 terms.  Trump chooses to enforce the law now: that is his policy.

What law are you talking about?  The Immigration Act of 1891 or the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996?  Or was it the Homeland Security Act of 2002?  

In a fashion it does not matter because the initial claim was not a fact, as even your post notes.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Interesting that Rodi and Tex actually upvote the above Mr. Kirkman comment.  That someone else once denounced migrants hardly provides foundation for the cruelties of Donald Trump.  At some point, even blind "Republicanism" allegiance gives way to decency.  Or does it?

You are deliberately ignoring the difference between legal migrants and illegal aliens.  

[Red + 252]

10 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You are deliberately ignoring the difference between legal migrants and illegal aliens.  

I doubt you appreciate the distinction.

You even talk about illegal immigration, whatever that is.

[Illurion + 894]

46 minutes ago, Red said:

I doubt you appreciate the distinction.

You even talk about illegal immigration, whatever that is.

Tom Kirkman is correct:

As far as the United States of America is concerned,   the word "MIGRANTS" has historically meant people that "LEGALLY" immigrate to the USA.

No-where in Federal Statute is the word "illegal migrants" used.

No-where in Federal Statute is the term "undocumented immigrants" used.

The official definition the United States uses in Federal Statutes for people that enter the USA illegally is:  "ILLEGAL ALIEN".

Obama issued an Executive Order for government agencies to use the term "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" without changing the LEGAL term listed by statute.

When Trump became President,  he cancelled the Obama Executive Order.

So,  to reiterate,  TOM is right,   by FEDERAL STATUTE,  THERE IS A SPECIFIC LEGAL DEFINITION FOR "LEGAL MIGRANTS",  AND FOR "ILLEGAL ALIENS",  AND THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS EACH OTHER.

Therefore,  when Tom talks about "illegal immigration",  he is talking about people that invade this country as "illegal aliens",  which is a crime.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

 

On 12/23/2018 at 6:29 PM, Illurion said:

Tom Kirkman is correct:     No, he is not.

As far as the United States of America is concerned,   the word "MIGRANTS" has historically meant people that "LEGALLY" immigrate to the USA.  No, it did not.

No-where in Federal Statute is the word "illegal migrants" used.  It is not against Statute to be a migrant to the USA.

No-where in Federal Statute is the term "undocumented immigrants" used.  Irrelevant.

The official definition the United States uses in Federal Statutes for people that enter the USA illegally is:  "ILLEGAL ALIEN".  There are a very small number of those;  what you call "Illegal Alien" is not such a person, because you cannot grasp the construct, either in law or anything else.  

Obama issued an Executive Order for government agencies to use the term "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" without changing the LEGAL term listed by statute.  So what? 

When Trump became President,  he cancelled the Obama Executive Order.   So what?  All that is, is politics.

So,  to reiterate,  TOM is right,   by FEDERAL STATUTE,  THERE IS A SPECIFIC LEGAL DEFINITION FOR "LEGAL MIGRANTS",  AND FOR "ILLEGAL ALIENS",  AND THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS EACH OTHER.   Not the case.  It is a miss-statement.

Therefore,  when Tom talks about "illegal immigration",  he is talking about people that invade this country as "illegal aliens",  which is a crime.   Not the case.  An Illegal alien is a person who has been deported and has a bar order, and violates the bar order.  It is the violation that makes the alien illegal. It is not "illegal" to be inside the USa without documents.  That is one of the big debate points in D.C. 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Tom Kirkman is correct:

So,  to reiterate,  TOM is right,   by FEDERAL STATUTE,  THERE IS A SPECIFIC LEGAL DEFINITION FOR "LEGAL MIGRANTS",  AND FOR "ILLEGAL ALIENS",  AND THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS EACH OTHER.

Therefore,  when Tom talks about "illegal immigration",  he is talking about people that invade this country as "illegal aliens",  which is a crime.

 

I never doubted the legal distinctions, just that Tom and you do not understand the nuances.  For example, it has been estimated that as many as 40% of undocumented aliens are visa overstayers, ie. people who arrived legally but are now "illegals".  How could the USA sanction such criminality?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 12/23/2018 at 5:28 PM, Red said:

I doubt you appreciate the distinction.

You even talk about illegal immigration, whatever that is.

One of the major difficulties of the current legislation governing migration into the USA is that there is no criminal violation of Statute for being inside the USA without a valid visa.  that is an administrative violation, and the federal government, if it chooses, can issue a deportation Order if it elects not to extend a visa.  Yet some countries are visa-free, with the anomalous result that there is no bar to being physically present inside the USA, literally forever.  For specific example, there is no visa requirement for Canadian nationals, (or at least, there historically was not, who knows what goes on today), so lots and lots of Canadians live in the USA, without any visa or immigration paperwork.  That in and of itself is not a violation, unless the person "works," i.e. does and accepts employment for money.  Working becomes the administrative breach, and that can lead to proceedings against the person, as the act of taking work is treated as migration, even if it is not a migration intent.  Lots and lots come into the USA, typically from Ireland and England, actually work for the summer, then go home.  Is that is conformance with administrative regulations?  No, it is not, it is violative.  Does the US Government actually do anything about the Irish?  NO, it chooses not to.  How about the Canadians?  No, they typically get ignored also.  Mexicans?  Down on them like a flea on a dog - if they do anything rash like join up with Migrant Justice and go picket the ICE Offices. You have to laugh. 

What, then, is an "illegal immigrant"?  That fellow is someone who has been previously deported, by Administrative Order or Criminal Proceedings, having been adjudged either in violation of Regulations or been found to be unsuitable for entry due to criminal history or criminal activity.  When such a person then sneaks into the USA without presenting oneself at an Inspection Station for examination then that person is "illegally in the United States" and if the purpose of the re-entry after deportation is to migrate, then that person becomes an "illegal immigrant" and is subject to being picked up and jailed, further to be criminally processed both for the offense of the crossing  (which he is barred to) and for further re-deportation.  The number of such people is quite small.  They are out there, and of that group, a good number end up committing crimes inside the USA, both for property, in narcotics, and against persons,  Those people are a big headache.    

You can be entering the United States without having presented oneself for Inspection at a Port of Entry in any number of ways.  One is intentional, of course.  Others include fleeing some Atlantic Storm and ducking into some little harbor on the coast.  Another is to be shipwrecked, to wash up o the beach.  Another is to get lost and stumble across accidentally.   Another is to be flying over a piece of US territory and having some mechanical or passenger issue that mandates essentially an emergency landing.  Another is being a Canadian and chasing your runaway dog, or cow  (the cow part happens often enough).  All are entries without Inspection.  

Before 9/11 and the hysteria, all the back roads from Canada were open, they were these mostly dirt roads, some even paved, that rann over the Border.  Today they have Jersey Barriers dropped across them.  The open roads were also used by adjacent  fire and rescue squads in mutual aid;  your barn was burning, and your American neighbors would come rushing to your aid.  Today, thanks to gthe Barriers installed by Janet Napolitano, that ugly piece of work, your barn and your cows and horses inside can all burn up.  Janet does not give one damn about the realities of the Border.  Neither do any of the Ridiculous Trump Supporters. 

-------------------

General comment to posters here:

I have said quite enough on this topic  (and thread). You people really need to go spend some part of your life living on the Border and then you will begin to grasp the nuances of reality, instead of being all wrapped up in ranting. Nuff said.

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Illurion + 894]

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

This jumble of cant is just absurd.  Just as well you do not teach logic.  Plato would be dismayed.

Jan,  what is "absurd" is what you are writing.

You actually wrote a post in which you CRITICIZED OTHER MEMBERS FOR "UPVOTING" .

What is wrong with you ?

Last week the media said there were 21 million illegal aliens,  yet you say "there are a very small number of them."  ?

No one knows everything,  and there is no dishonor in not knowing something.

Why do you post your opinions,  which are often VOID OF FACTS,   and then constantly attack everyone else about the veracity of their facts, thoughts,  or opinions ?

You act like a 7th grade bully.

 

[Illurion + 894]

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

General comment to posters here:

I have said quite enough on this topic  (and thread).  I get annoyed with the rank stupidities that get spouted out,  you people really need to go spend some part of your life living on the Border and then you will begin to grasp the nuances of reality, instead of being all wrapped up in hysterical ranting. Nuff said

Jan,  many of those "stupidities that get spouted out" come from you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This thread could use a chill pill.  There is always more than 1 viewpoint, and some viewpoints may be based on incorrect interpretations.

[TXPower + 643]

I live with illegal immigration, daily.  I am 100% against it.  However, I do not sanction removing kids from family, under any circumstances.

But, let’s move beyond the heartstring stories and virtue signaling.  Let’s get to the core issue, the law, as it pertains to illegal immigration.  Cause and effect.  Conscious decisions by people to violate US Law and enter our nation illegally.  Whatever the number of children split from families is, there would be no splitting them if they hadnt entered illegally. 

Obviously the kids have no say in it and thus we should not be splitting them from family.  

What we should do is build a wall or militarize our border, like we did for the “caravan”.  Then, we won’t have to split families because they won’t enter our borders illegally.  And, we should expedite the legal process, especially this asylum nonsense,  to send them home, together, as a family.  

As for appropriate terminologies:

The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)

And From the USCIS. Gov website:

• Alien 

  Any person not a citizen or national of the United States. “Foreign national” is a synonym and used outside of statutes when referring to noncitizens of the U.S.

19 minutes ago, Red said:

I never doubted the legal distinctions, just that Tom and you do not understand the nuances.  For example, it has been estimated that as many as 40% of undocumented aliens are visa overstayers, ie. people who arrived legally but are now "illegals".  How could the USA sanction such criminality?

Not exactly.  Close if you are just talking about the ones who arrive by air or sea, going through a immigration point staying past their authorized timeframe.  Those folks are classified as “overstayers”.  

But that’s not really what we are talking about here.  We’re talking about folks who cross our southern border by walking or motor vehicle illegally, forgoing any immigration check-point and staying illegally.  Millions of folks.  

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/homeland-security-produces-first-estimate-of-foreign-visitors-to-u-s-who-overstay-deadline-to-leave/

We sanction it as criminality because it’s against our sovereign laws.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, TXPower said:

We sanction it as criminality because it’s against our sovereign laws.

 

Still incorrect.  It is not sanctioned as criminality, because Congress cannot get its act together, and the activity you describe is a violation of administrative Regulations, and not a crime.  Now that is the part that gets the right-wingers into a total frenzy.  They want it a crime.  When the crossers are taken into custody, they are in administrative detention.  That is why they can be held without a court appearance and without an automatic right to counsel: they are not being charged criminally. 

Administrative detention is NOT the same as being considered a criminal. As a Criminal, all the protections of the ill of rights kick in.  Being detained, for an alien  (defined as "everybody else on the planet who is not Merkun,") puts you into an administrative detention facility.  That looks like a jail, talks like a jail, and might as well be a jail, but it is not, not technically, a jail.  In jail, you have lots of rights.  In detention, as a practical matter, you have none, and can be beaten to death, hey no biggie.  Lots of people die inside those detention buildings.  But since they are aliens, it is not considered of any importance.  Welcome the America, the land where the red carpet is always out.  

[TXPower + 643]

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Still incorrect.  It is not sanctioned as criminality, because Congress cannot get its act together, and the activity you describe is a violation of administrative Regulations, and not a crime.  Now that is the part that gets the right-wingers into a total frenzy.  They want it a crime.  When the crossers are taken into custody, they are in administrative detention.  That is why they can be held without a court appearance and without an automatic right to counsel: they are not being charged criminally. 

Administrative detention is NOT the same as being considered a criminal. As a Criminal, all the protections of the ill of rights kick in.  Being detained, for an alien  (defined as "everybody else on the planet who is not Merkun,") puts you into an administrative detention facility.  That looks like a jail, talks like a jail, and might as well be a jail, but it is not, not technically, a jail.  In jail, you have lots of rights.  In detention, as a practical matter, you have none, and can be beaten to death, hey no biggie.  Lots of people die inside those detention buildings.  But since they are aliens, it is not considered of any importance.  Welcome the America, the land where the red carpet is always out.  

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1)

at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2)

twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c)Marriage fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d)Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

[Red + 252]

27 minutes ago, TXPower said:

As for appropriate terminologies:

The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)

"Illegal" is usually a post arrival terminology, as until a determination of their arrival status has been made they could be irregular migrants, asylum seekers, or visa overstayers.  Tom's linked videos referred to "illegal immigration" yet that terminology was never used (from memory).  Nowadays there is a school of thought that believes that getting tough on arrivals who have not gone through "legal" channels is a vote winner, and sentiment here proves that can be the case.  I spent a couple weeks in Germany after the massive influx of mostly Syrian refugees a few years ago and at that time, despite the media hysteria, any negative consequences were totally absent to a visitor.  Interestingly, the contrary was the case as we saw banners written in English in a number of neighbourhoods welcoming refugees.

My point is that when politicians insert "illegal" into their policy plans, it effectively dehumanises those affected, while their constituents think they are being protected. 

• But that’s not really what we are talking about here.  We’re talking about folks who cross our southern border by walking or motor vehicle illegally, forgoing any immigration check-point and staying illegally.  Millions of folks.  Here's an article from over 10 years ago, so not much has materially changed, except the posturing of those who come up with ill-conceived solutions  not much has changed.  BTW, were a few of the 911 visa overstayers, rather than southern border crossers?

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Since so many people seem to be getting hopping mad under the collar, maybe a hoppy froggie Merry Christmas will give a few people a fluorescent bright little chuckle  ; )

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

18 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Trump cannot be President;  America is better than that. 

Why Trump Can't Be Airbrushed Out of the Picture

The mistake that Trump's opponents made from the start, and some still continue to make, is to underestimate him and dismiss his appeal to wide segments of society as an aberration.

Trump has, however, managed to question the political agenda by questioning the so-called Washington Consensus that led to globalization with all its benefits and drawbacks. In his unorthodox manner, Trump has put a number of burning issues back on the agenda.

These include the widening income gap in the United States, the unintended and unexpected consequences of outsourcing, and the disequilibrium created by signing trade agreements with countries with different labor laws and environmental, health and safety standards. In foreign policy, Trump has managed to pass on an important message: don't take American heavy lifting for granted! More importantly, Trump has persuaded millions of Americans excluded or self-excluded from the political arena to end their isolation and demand a meaningful place in collective decision-making. Thus, for the time being at least, air-brushing Trump out of the picture is a forlorn task.

 

==========================

Trump is the U S. President.  He's not going away.  The U.S. Constitution will simply not be dustbinned simply because some people are "offended" by Trump.

Time for a few "low brow" memes to illustrate the point...

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

These include the widening income gap in the United States

Trump makes his money off that gap

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump makes his money off that gap

I disagree, but if you want to play that game, please explain how the Clintons and Obamas made tens of millions of dollars while in office.  Or Maxine Waters.  Or Diane Feinstein, the list is endless.

The Clinton Foundation is being investigated for illicit money, among many other things ... that should be an amusing show next year ...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

By the way, the "yellow jacket" protests have spread to at least 7 or 8 countries so far, including Taiwan.  The entrenched ruling elite are probably not having a very merry Christmas this year.  The "peasants" are awakening, and not too happy.

This inane "carbon tax" to somehow offset CO2 (which all humans exhale) seems to be the straw that kicked the up the storm.  

The ruling classes / United Nations apparently want to tax the human function of exhaling CO2.

What's next, a tax to urinate?

[Rodent + 1,424]

3 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I disagree, but if you want to play that game, please explain how the Clintons and Obamas made tens of millions of dollars while in office.  Or Maxine Waters.  Or Diane Feinstein, the list is endless.

The Clinton Foundation is being investigated for illicit money, among many other things ... that should be an amusing show next year ...

oh my gosh I think I've already covered this in other threads. I think it will be listed under the Community guidelines!

we forever will not use the word MaxineWaters

[Rodent + 1,424]

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Interesting that Rodi and Tex actually upvote the above Mr. Kirkman comment.  That someone else once denounced migrants hardly provides foundation for the cruelties of Donald Trump.  At some point, even blind "Republicanism" allegiance gives way to decency.  Or does it?

I would upvote those videos over and over. The point wasn't whether Trump is a monster. the point was that people forget that past presidents had similar stances on illegal aliens. That is an important point to make. 

Beyond that, you can make whatever point you would like about how those philosophies are or were enforced. But we should at least agree that the past two presidents were not happy about illegal aliens flooding our Southern border. (or at least that's what they said publicly).

But Trump is often portrayed as a President who wants to enforce immigration laws, like that is somehow a new philosophy. it's not. I don't think Tom said anything about Clinton or Obama being socialists, although their handout-on-the-dole social programs come pretty close. 

You can absolutely feel free to be a Trump hater.  But he is the president, at least for now. 

 

[jaycee + 348]

10 hours ago, Red said:

I spent a couple weeks in Germany after the massive influx of mostly Syrian refugees a few years ago and at that time, despite the media hysteria, any negative consequences were totally absent to a visitor.  Interestingly, the contrary was the case as we saw banners written in English in a number of neighbourhoods welcoming refugees.

I can't let that one go.

I have l stayed and worked in Bavaria many, many times for weeks on end, I have friends who live there, one Nigerian, one Turkish and one English, and remember having the discussion with an UK based guy with a German wife at the time of the migrants coming to Germany. He said Merkel was a great leader for taking these migrants in I said she was the worst German leader since Hitler in that she was about to undo 70 years of trying to bury their fascist past. Sure enough all those migrants have got the Nazi right wing of Germany on the rise the problem was and is obvious, Syrians are not remotely of the same culture as the Germans. Germans love rules and follow them with fervour, 3am in the morning with no traffic in a remote town they will wait in a for the green man before crossing a road. If you cross at such a time and they see you, you get disapproving stares, been there done that. They like order and things done the German way and it works well for them however other nationalities can have a lot of problems adapting to their way off life and values. Bring in a middle eastern culture with their strong non christian religion and different views on how rules should be followed and treating women as second class citizen and you have a recipe for disaster and so it has turned out to be.

The bit about welcoming refugees by the way is because Germans are nice people who want to help and welcome visitors but if you do not conform to the German way off life then you are not welcome, their country their rules. They are now not welcome from what I have seen due to their behavior and bringing disorder to the very ordered German way of life.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

32 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Syrians are not remotely of the same culture as the Germans. Germans love rules and follow them with fervour, 3am in the morning with no traffic in a remote town they will wait in a for the green man before crossing a road. If you cross at such a time and they see you, you get disapproving stares, been there done that. They like order and things done the German way and it works well for them however other nationalities can have a lot of problems adapting to their way off life and values. Bring in a middle eastern culture with their strong non christian religion and different views on how rules should be followed and treating women as second class citizen and you have a recipe for disaster and so it has turned out to be.

The bit about welcoming refugees by the way is because Germans are nice people who want to help and welcome visitors but if you do not conform to the German way off life then you are not welcome, their country their rules. They are now not welcome from what I have seen due to their behavior and bringing disorder to the very ordered German way of life.

I didn't quote the first part of your comment, simply because I don't know anything about those points.

The rest of it is pretty much spot on.  That part about the disapproving stares: lucky if you don't get reported and a follow up with the local police ensues.  Been there, done that!  I had no defense because I knew the rules/laws and I broke them, simple as that: and I'm good with that.  Their country, their rules.  One would expect the same when a guest in anyone else's home.

The Germans also have strong memories and history that is drilled into them that made (past tense) them sympathetic to immigrants and/or minorities.  That is changing, or has changed.  They will not stand for leadership that tilts that balance away from them (and I don't mean whites only).  It is worth noting that the German polizia are some of the most tolerant police forces I have ever witnessed in action, in every circumstance.  Pretty cool, actually.  But if you cross the line too far, they are equally prepared to bring down the boom chak-a-lak-a!