Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

13,000 Arab Illegal Immigrants to be Deported

Immigration Middle East Illegals

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 12:53 PM

I have cousins who live on Long Island.  They are from Bulgaria, the husband had a work visa, the kids and his wife came later.  They formed a life here in the last 4 or so years.
Last year, they had to renew their visas.  The problem was, they didn't really go to a lawyer to discuss the issues involving getting new visas.  Every time they were supposed to find out if they were approved or not, they didn't get an answer from the government.  They waited over 4 months to finally learn that the husband got the visa, but the wife was inelligible because she was supposed to apply for one as well.  They all thought that the wife's visa would come with the husbands.  It's their fault for not reading all they should have.

A few years ago, I'm sure the government would have been a lot more lenient regarding such matters.  Right now, they are looking for a place and jobs in Canada for however long the penalty period is.  Technically, the wife can stay in the US, but can never leave to visit family, and no family can come to the US.  

I'm not that well versed in such things, but personally, I feel that the steps the government has taken are wrong.  Why?  People have come to the US for a reason, most of the time it is to escape the difficulties in their native homes.  They come here hoping for a new life, new opportunites.  Then September 11th happens.  Yes, it makes sense for the government to be wary.  But these people have been here for probably a while.  And its the ineptness of the government agencies such as FBI and CIA, who reportedly had some knowledge of terrorist attack possibilites and all the other issues regarding the hijackers, that are also to blame for the attacks finally occuring.

Let these people live a life here, if they deserve it.  This country was built on immigrants.  Why should you deport them based on race now?
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#22 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:16 PM

Ogami, on Jun 10 2003, 06:01 PM, said:

Ro-Astarte wrote:

Support that statement with some data, please.

http://www.rapidcity...ocal/news03.txt
http://www.foxnews.c...3,46841,00.html

That's about it, aside from blogs. Chicago Mayor Daley was famous for turning out entire graveyards to vote in the Kennedy/Nixon election. There were articles back during the Clinton/Dole election detailing how certain Democrat fundraisers were paid in bulk funds in order to "ensure" that entire nursing homes somehow voted for the proper candidate.

And as we saw in the 2000 election, many Gore supporters proudly stated that the law was no obstacle in the goal of preventing Bush from taking office. When it comes to Democrat voting, the ends justify the means. Legality is just a word for the losing side, apparently.

-Ogami
b*llsh*t. Example one has nothing to do with any particular political party, but the Sioux doing it. Example 2 has to do with a fundamental disagreement on whether voters should have to produce ID to vote. They sure don't have to in my state - what about yours???

The Chicago machine was notorious in its day. So what?

Edited by Rhea, 11 June 2003 - 02:23 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#23 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:45 PM

Rhea, on Jun 11 2003, 03:20 AM, said:

Ogami, on Jun 10 2003, 06:01 PM, said:

Ro-Astarte wrote:

Support that statement with some data, please.

http://www.rapidcity...ocal/news03.txt
http://www.foxnews.c...3,46841,00.html

That's about it, aside from blogs. Chicago Mayor Daley was famous for turning out entire graveyards to vote in the Kennedy/Nixon election. There were articles back during the Clinton/Dole election detailing how certain Democrat fundraisers were paid in bulk funds in order to "ensure" that entire nursing homes somehow voted for the proper candidate.

And as we saw in the 2000 election, many Gore supporters proudly stated that the law was no obstacle in the goal of preventing Bush from taking office. When it comes to Democrat voting, the ends justify the means. Legality is just a word for the losing side, apparently.

-Ogami
b*llsh*t.

The Chicago machine was notorious in its day. So what?
Here's the actual story on the urban legend of Kennedy stealing the Illinois vote.  

http://slate.msn.com/id/91350/

An excerpt:

Texas and Illinois, the two largest states under dispute, witnessed the nastiest fights. In Texas, where Kennedy won the 24 electoral votes by a margin of 46,000 ballots, the GOP took to the courts. But its suits were thrown out by a federal judge who claimed he had no jurisdiction. In Illinois, the appeal was pursued more vigorously, maybe because the electoral take was higher (27) and Kennedy's margin slimmer (9,000 votes). Charges focused on Cook County (specifically Chicago) where Kennedy had won by a suspiciously overwhelming 450,000 votes.

National GOP officials plunged in. Thruston Morton flew to Chicago to confer with Illinois Republican leaders on strategy, while party Treasurer Meade Alcorn announced Nixon would win the state. With Nixon distancing himself from the effort, the Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, stepped forward to lead the challenge. A Daley antagonist and potential rival for the mayoralty, Adamowski had lost his job to a Democrat by 25,000 votes. The closeness of his defeat entitled him to a recount, which began Nov. 29.

Completed Dec. 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon's (and Adamowski's) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon's vote was overcounted. Displeased, the Republicans took the case to federal court, only to have a judge dismiss the suits. Still undeterred, they turned to the State Board of Elections, which was composed of four Republicans, including the governor, and one Democrat. Yet the state board, too, unanimously rejected the petition, citing the GOP's failure to provide even a single affidavit on its behalf. The national party finally backed off after Dec. 19, when the nation's Electoral College certified Kennedy as the new president?but even then local Republicans wouldn't accept the Illinois results.

A recount did wind up changing the winner in one state: Hawaii. On Dec. 28, a circuit court judge ruled that the state?originally called Kennedy's but awarded to Nixon after auditing errors emerged?belonged to Kennedy after all. Nixon's net gain: -3 electoral votes.

The GOP's failure to prove fraud doesn't mean, of course, that the election was clean. That question remains unsolved and unsolvable. But what's typically left out of the legend is that multiple election boards saw no reason to overturn the results. Neither did state or federal judges. Neither did an Illinois special prosecutor in 1961. And neither have academic inquiries into the Illinois case (both a 1961 study by three University of Chicago professors and more recent research by political scientist Edmund Kallina concluded that whatever fraud existed wasn't substantial enough to alter the election).

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:54 PM

I have to show a Drivers Licence if a question of legality to vote comes into question. Such as if someone earlier claiming to me voted in my name.  But beyond thatI do not know about any requirements.

Now as to issues of using amnesty programs to gain voters that has been claimed for years but I cannot say it happens ofen for Republican canidates. I do not say it does not happen only that I have not heard of it.

This is getting off topic.

As I understand it all of these deportations happened before a court. Ifthis is the case then due process has been done and appeals can be filed. I do not understand what the problems is.A I said before if someone presents where this is a unbalnced by other deportation actions I can see that what happened as being unfair.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 11:54 PM

Rhea wrote:

b*llsh*t. Example one has nothing to do with any particular political party, but the Sioux doing it. Example 2 has to do with a fundamental disagreement on whether voters should have to produce ID to vote. They sure don't have to in my state - what about yours??? The Chicago machine was notorious in its day. So what?

I already knew that was your answer before bothering, but you asked and I answered as best I could on a cursory internet search. Suffice to say that we elephants have long memories, and my memories of Democrat chicanery (hence the term) in elections is quite long.

We now return to the peaceful world where the Democratic party is all truth and purity, and the Republican party is the source of all evil and villainy. Moving right along...

-Ogami

#26 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 12:05 AM

MuseZack wrote:

Here's the actual story on the urban legend of Kennedy stealing the Illinois vote.

From the ultra-liberal, ultra-left, proud-Democrat Slate online magazine! And you complain about the Conservative media? (chuckle) It's not an Urban legend, let's check with Nixon Biographer Richard Reeve on how Nixon not only didn't contest the 1960 election, but saved the country that agony that the shameless and selfish Algore put us through. That's right, Richard Nixon had higher morals than Algore, that says it all.

________________________

There's Always the Option of Giving In
By RICHARD REEVES
November 10, 2000

WASHINGTON -- President John F. Kennedy would sometimes write the number 118,574 on a slip of paper and put it in his pocket. That was his margin of victory in the popular vote over Vice President Richard M. Nixon in the 1960 election. The vote was close, the mandate thin, the president cautious.

In fact, there were a lot of people, Nixon among them, who thought the vote had been even closer than that. Some thought the election had been stolen, that Democrats in at least two states, Illinois and Texas, had produced the necessary number of Kennedy votes from thin air and the names on tombstones. When Kennedy and Nixon met for the first time after the votes were counted, on Nov. 14, Kennedy said, "Well, it's hard to tell who won the election at this point."

Nixon nodded. He knew the real reason Kennedy had come to him -- they met in a villa at the Key Biscayne Hotel where the Nixons were vacationing -- was to try to persuade him not to fight the vote count in court or in the press. But Kennedy did not have to try. Nixon immediately told Kennedy he would not challenge the official results, and they began a meaningless conversation about the prospect of Republicans serving in the new Democratic administration.

If Nixon had decided to pursue a challenge, he might have had a good case. Republicans were producing claims of fraud, waving sworn depositions from election officials in Illinois and Texas. It was great stuff: there were 6,138 votes cast by the 4,895 voters registered in Fannin County, Texas; in the 38th precinct of Chicago's sixth ward, 43 voters seemed to have cast 121 votes in the hour after the polls opened.

But whatever else he was, Nixon was a patriot. He understood what recounts and lawsuits and depositions carried out over months -- even years -- would do to the nation. He was also a realist, and he knew that investigations might well turn up examples of his own party's tradition of recording votes for folks dead or alive in southern Illinois and a few other venues.

Besides, even if he could have reversed the result in Illinois, which Kennedy, officially, had carried by fewer than 10,000 votes, Nixon would still have lost. The final electoral vote tally was 303 for Kennedy to 219 for Nixon (15 Southern electors ignored election results and voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia), and a switch of Illinois's 26 electoral votes would not have changed the outcome. (There was no provision for recounts in Texas.) Finally, there was Nixon's patron, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was angry about the alleged fraud but finally told Nixon that he could not back him in a challenge to the results.

Now, in a time of more honest vote counting, Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have to decide how far they are willing to go in fighting for the last vote. Declarations of victory, demonstrations and lawsuits could backfire -- big time.

Amazingly, Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have come even closer to a dead heat than did Nixon and Kennedy. But odds are, the counts and doubts will end the same way they did 40 years ago -- not in the matter of who wins and who loses, but in the sense that the apparent loser will be under tremendous pressure to accept the official results. A candidate can't reject the process without rejecting his own legitimacy and the nation's faith in that process. My country's counts, right or wrong.

For the rest of his life, Nixon was asked about his decision after that election of 1960. In public, he always gave a variation of the answer he gave to Earl Mazo, a New York Herald Tribune reporter who was his first biographer and who did a series of articles on fraud in the election:

"The country can't afford the agony of a constitutional crisis, and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become president or anything else."


His good deed was rewarded. Eight years later, in another of the closest of presidential elections, Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey by just over 500,000 votes in the popular vote and an Electoral College count of 301 to 191. Had he challenged the process in 1960, he almost certainly would not have been invited back by the American people in 1968.

But even after the loser concedes, if the results are certified but remain uncertain, how does the winner govern? It will be much more difficult for this year's winner than it was for Kennedy in 1961 -- and not just because the winner may actually have been the loser in popular votes. The context of the presidency has changed.

The greatest presidential power has always been in foreign affairs; past the water's edge the president is the United States of America. The state of the world often determines whether Americans unite behind the commander in chief; debates over domestic politics can seem to be mere bickering.

In Kennedy's time the nation was united by the cold war, but today's issues seem as small and divisive as who pays for aspirin. Kennedy's inaugural address contained only two words on domestic affairs: "at home." Kennedy inserted them after his civil rights adviser, Harris Wofford, protested that he had to say something about the waves of protest by young black Americans in Southern states. Kennedy took a pen and put the words into a sentence about tyranny abroad, ending it: ". . . unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed and to which we are committed at home and around the world."

It is the Kennedy of the Cuban missile crisis we remember, not the Kennedy whose domestic program, such as it was, was bogged down in Congress and under constant attack in the press. The first meeting between Nixon and President Kennedy after the inauguration involved Cuba. The president invited Nixon in to talk about the disaster at the Bay of Pigs -- a time for another show of national unity -- in April of 1961.

As they parted after a half hour or so, Kennedy said: "It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle, isn't it?" Who cares, he asked, "if the minimum wage is $1.15 or $1.25, in comparison to something like this?"

But the president elected in 2000 may well spend his term dealing with issues like the minimum wage and school test scores. Those issues are important to many, but not as important as war and peace. The winner, whoever he is, already looks small -- and each day of counting and recounting will make him look smaller. Meanwhile, if he understands the national concern over chaotic politics, the loser can go quietly into the night and wait till next time.

Richard Reeves, author of ``President Kennedy: Profile of Power,'' is writing a book about Richard Nixon.

Edited by Ogami, 12 June 2003 - 12:07 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Immigration, Middle East, Illegals

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users