meninlove said Oh yes, Judge Ming, who is also against redefining marriage judicially and is a Conservative/Republican.
Nice to see you guys criticize him.
meninlove said Well, that makes you pretty unique, Mock, and perhaps the first true Libertarian we've seen on here; neither Liberal or Republican. Your empathy and consideration of the human condition is still a contradiction though.
We're tempted to call tongun18 a libertarian with a true heart and true empathy but feel he doesn't care for labels.
We notice others clang the libertarian bell, but only critique liberals. Interesting, eh?
Now we really do have to get ready for Aunt Kathie's funeral. Our bro-in-law's in next after this one. Rough week.
-Doug
http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1157For the first time, many of those picked up were charged with crimes such as falsifying identity documents or identity theft that carry long prison sentences, rather than misuse of a social security number, a misdemeanor.
This single change in enforcement of existing law created a potential “market” of over 10 million new felons almost overnight, multiplying the lucrative incarceration market for the private prison industry and sending a shock wave through immigrant-related communities across the country...
Through this change in how federal law is enforced, CCA and GEO suddenly had a huge pool of captive clients, and began to rake in millions of dollars in public funds to house, transport, feed and control immigrants.
Predictably, costs to taxpayers skyrocketed. From 2006 to the present, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) budget for the identification, custody, transportation, detention and removal of immigrants has increased 51%. The U.S. Marshall budget for the custody and transportation of immigrants over the same period has increased 15%, and the Bureau of Prisons budget for detention of immigrants over the same period has gone up 9%. The billions of dollars in increased expenditures have provided the primary source for the billions in increased revenue for CCA and GEO.
conservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
UpperCanadian saidconservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.
In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.
I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.
this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.
If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?
Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?
It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.
same articleThe court observed that the state law also benefits U.S. citizens who reside in other states but attend and graduate from high school in California.
"It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens," Chin wrote.
mocktwinkie saidUpperCanadian saidconservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.
In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.
I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.
this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.
If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?
Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?
It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.
Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.
By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.
q1w2e3 saidsame articleThe court observed that the state law also benefits U.S. citizens who reside in other states but attend and graduate from high school in California.
"It cannot be the case that states may never give a benefit to unlawful aliens without giving the same benefit to all American citizens," Chin wrote.
It's not them receiving tuition money, it's just that they are getting a lower in-state tuition if they had 3 years of HS in California and graduated.
UpperCanadian saidmocktwinkie saidUpperCanadian saidconservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.
In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.
I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.
this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.
If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?
Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?
It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.
Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.
By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.
Actually, no.
Who said anything about it? I'll show you:
"cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education."
Now let's look up and see who wrote that?
Hmmm....
Oh yeah.
YOU.
And I thought I had short-term memory problems.
mocktwinkie saidUpperCanadian saidmocktwinkie saidUpperCanadian saidconservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
To comment, I would need to know which level of government has responsibility for education.
In Canada, the provinces have jurisdiction over education and are VERY hostile to federal encroachment into their jurisdiction.
I thought Conservatives were really into the federal government keeping their hands out of State's business.
this is another of those situations where I cannot figure out the fundamental worldview that informs these opinions. If it were well thought out I don't see how a thoughtful conservative could even make the original proposition.
If you can propose something so inconsistent with your most fundamental beliefs - how honestly do you believe them - or rather how well have you thought it out?
Do you just "go by gut" on an issue by issue basis without need of a consistent philosophy?
It is the the very quintessence of irrationality.
Who said anything about the government interfering with state business? This has to do with observing a state crash and burn itself.
By your response I guess we can all assume that you think it's a wonderful idea for a state to be giving education money to people who aren't even citizens.
Actually, no.
Who said anything about it? I'll show you:
"cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education."
Now let's look up and see who wrote that?
Hmmm....
Oh yeah.
YOU.
And I thought I had short-term memory problems.
But I didn't write that, so you must be the one having memory problems.
mocktwinkie said
I know what the article says. I can't even believe they are eligible to begin with, it's totally outrageous.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/05/immigration.phpIn a perfect world, he says, they would all be rounded up and forced out. But 13 million people is a lot of flesh to move -- about as many folks who live in Illinois and nearly 5 percent of the nation's population. Using computer modeling and data analysis, Gerwitz recently completed a year-long study examining just how practicable it would be to ship every illegal immigrant home.
His conclusion: not very.
Assuming law enforcement could round up every illegal immigrant, Gewirtz says, it would take 166,666 buses to do the job, more than 13 billion gallons of fuel and about 48 million pounds of food to simply carry them to the nearest border. And that's not to mention the cost to rent the buses or to detain the immigrants while waiting to be transported.
q1w2e3 saidmocktwinkie said
I know what the article says. I can't even believe they are eligible to begin with, it's totally outrageous.
What would you want:
1. Uneducated illegal immigrants sapping resources and working menial jobs, with high crime rates and clogging up the prison system, to the benefit of prison corporations
2. Educated illegal immigrants who are contributing to the economy by paying taxes and using less state resources
I want 2.http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/05/immigration.phpIn a perfect world, he says, they would all be rounded up and forced out. But 13 million people is a lot of flesh to move -- about as many folks who live in Illinois and nearly 5 percent of the nation's population. Using computer modeling and data analysis, Gerwitz recently completed a year-long study examining just how practicable it would be to ship every illegal immigrant home.
His conclusion: not very.
Assuming law enforcement could round up every illegal immigrant, Gewirtz says, it would take 166,666 buses to do the job, more than 13 billion gallons of fuel and about 48 million pounds of food to simply carry them to the nearest border. And that's not to mention the cost to rent the buses or to detain the immigrants while waiting to be transported.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0315dnmetimmigcount.3d35b14.htmlEven so, Gov. Rick Perry supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. In a recent debate, he said the students are on the path to citizenship. However, they actually won't be on that path unless the Dream Act passes.
Illegal immigrants entering Texas' higher education system are direct beneficiaries of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Parents in Tyler sued after the state began charging tuition for illegal immigrant children. The court ruled that Texas and the rest of the country must educate illegal immigrant children free of charge in public schools.
...University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law clearly allows states to draft their own policies, and he believes the Texas case is similar to the Kansas one.
"It is a matter for states to determine," he said. "In-state status is a state issue."
Illegal immigrant students were never barred from enrolling in Texas colleges, but the higher tuition price tag for nonstate residents often meant they couldn't afford to attend.
The Texas law requires students to attend school in the state for at least three years before graduation from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. State officials have argued that the treatment is not preferential in comparison to residency requirements for other students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._DoeThe court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
q1w2e3 saidRick Perry (a Republican Texan!) didn't think it was so absurd:http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0315dnmetimmigcount.3d35b14.htmlEven so, Gov. Rick Perry supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. In a recent debate, he said the students are on the path to citizenship. However, they actually won't be on that path unless the Dream Act passes.
Illegal immigrants entering Texas' higher education system are direct beneficiaries of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler vs. Doe. Parents in Tyler sued after the state began charging tuition for illegal immigrant children. The court ruled that Texas and the rest of the country must educate illegal immigrant children free of charge in public schools.
...University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law clearly allows states to draft their own policies, and he believes the Texas case is similar to the Kansas one.
"It is a matter for states to determine," he said. "In-state status is a state issue."
Illegal immigrant students were never barred from enrolling in Texas colleges, but the higher tuition price tag for nonstate residents often meant they couldn't afford to attend.
The Texas law requires students to attend school in the state for at least three years before graduation from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to apply for permanent residency as soon as possible. State officials have argued that the treatment is not preferential in comparison to residency requirements for other students.
q1w2e3 saidThe Supreme Court also didn't think so.
q1w2e3 saidLet's give the CA Supreme Court their freedom then.
jprichva saidconservativejock saidFor those that this truly pisses off -- and I do mean just that -- make sure you vote in 2012. The only real solution is to cut off federal funding to states that use federal dollars in higher education.
The true revelation we need at the federal level is to move civil crimes over to the criminal side. Make using federal dollars to support someone in America illegally a felony.
Be honest here---you'd be so much happier living in a dictatorship.
Copyright © 2006-2016 Family Powered Networks. All rights reserved
