Originally Posted by High_Plains_Drifter
No one is claiming any different, there's 9 or 10 pages now, with many of my posts agreeing that there IS bias. However, lobbying? Not once have I heard that of any SCOTUS court, certainly not back in 1982!
Super Minion
No one is claiming any different, there's 9 or 10 pages now, with many of my posts agreeing that there IS bias. However, lobbying? Not once have I heard that of any SCOTUS court, certainly not back in 1982!
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
No... my jobs have been Auto Mechanic, IBM Customer Engineer, USAF Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, Electro-mechanical Maintenance III(in a prison, not prison guard), Master Harley Davidson Technician, and Welder.
If kids are resilient enough to be "rented" so that illegal aliens can take advantage of the flaws in our immigration laws, then sent back and RECYCLED for others to do the same thing again, then they can surely be deported the same as adults.
Last edited by High_Plains_Drifter; 06-08-2019 at 03:28 PM.
Super Minion
Great list of jobs. My point being in none of those were you responsible for kids beyond your own loved ones. That's fine. That's most people. Now, do you want to have people who don't like kids or don't like 'some' kids being teachers? I'm pretty certain that is what STABB was getting at yesterday.
Then again, there IS that pesky SCOTUS case, should that just be ignored?
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
I think there's a fundamental difference between someone who "doesn't like kids" and someone that just wants to see the illegal invasion of our country stopped. I like kids just fine. I have a grandson that I just adore. I think someone can like kids and still don't want to see our classrooms full of illegal alien children, that came here illegally, costing us legal American taxpayers billions of dollars to turn into new democrat voters. Evidently I'm a good example of that.
But no, I'm not advocating that anyone ignore a law. If the law says teachers can ignore illegal alien children in the classroom, then that's the way it is. I disagree with it, but I guess I just have to suck it up and deal with it and hope that someday the law changes.
Last edited by High_Plains_Drifter; 06-08-2019 at 03:44 PM.
Thatcherite Minion
I can't begin to disagree with any of this.
There's the aspect to this that children of illegal immigrants receiving US schooling, wouldn't be present at all, if their parents hadn't illegally invaded. But, since they ARE present, it must follow that each and every such child is taking up a space, and using resources, that fully legal, American-citizen children would otherwise have for THEM.
As innocent as any child is of deliberate intent, the fact remains that resources are channelled for the use of the 'illegal' child where they could be more legitimately given for the educational betterment of the fully American child. Resources are never infinite. What's available is shared out between 'legitimately present' and 'illegitimately present' alike.
Who pays for those resources ? Do 'illegals' chip in with their share, or do their children just take what others have paid for ?
But then, we already have the answer to that ....
It's very difficult to see how that could add up to be a just state of affairs, or, why it should continue indefinitely. Or any longer than it MUST.
This all poses a question in my mind. Which is: what duty does a teacher have, to best serve the interests of the school that employs that teacher ... and are those interests best served by the giving over of resources to children who that school was never put into existence to teach ?
Last edited by Drummond; 06-08-2019 at 05:49 PM.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Super Minion
What is the answer to that bolded?
In actuality many if not most illegals do pay taxes, under false SSI numbers-thus for no benefit to them. They also pay for local taxes if they rent and for all they buy-state, local, and federal. They pay the taxes on fuel, etc.
Often employers KNOW they are illegal and take out 'more' of their pay for taxes, without actually paying them-another reason that the borders need to be controlled as it's often close to indentured slavery.
In any case it isn't the fault of the kids and wherever they end up; still here in the US, back in their own country, or perhaps back in the superior British system or somewhere else; having them literate is better than illiterate for them and whichever country's criminal system.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Super Minion
An interesting article on THIS Supreme Ct., I thought @Drummond might find it enlightening how the 'differences' or biases and the ability of that court to accept or not the cases they will hear. Can also get an idea of how over time, the court shifts:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ws/1271685001/
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Thatcherite Minion
Your answer is a surprise -- I'd have thought it'd be impossible for illegal aliens to have any means of paying anything at all into State coffers. The very mention of false Social Security (that IS what SSI means ?) numbers, suggests that some kind of 'industry' exists to cater for the integration of illegals !!
Well, OK. If they can or do in fact pay taxes, that definitely weakens my argument. Thanks for the correction.
Life, Love, Truth, 3 gems
No my friend , your point has not been weakened. Math does not lie, the numbers do not lie..
Yes some of them pay taxes, yet what they steal in aid far, far outweighs what they pay in...-Tyr
New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually
September 27, 2017
IRLI Staff
Brunt of Costs Fall on State and Local Taxpayers
(Washington, D.C.) - Illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year - an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates - according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation's 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.
Costs Soar
The report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation’s illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud. The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes.
Taxes Paid Inadequate
The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).
“Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high,” said FAIR executive director Dan Stein. “President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs,” said Stein. “Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control,” he said.
ABOUT FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With more than 1.3 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced
18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Drummond liked this post
Thatcherite Minion
'Interesting' isn't my word for it. To me, words like 'shocking' and 'outragous' come to mind (.. and I'm feeling especially diplomatic today !).
Here's a thought. Have your judges, at any time in the recent past, put aside political posturing just to give PURE JUSTICE a chance ??
Kathianne, as I think I've said, your system is an alien one to my eyes. Judging by my standards, I regard the account I've read from your USA Today article to be evidence that your system is riddled with corruption. Judges are apparently far more interested, whether Left or Right wing, in pushing political agendas than they are in finding justice in cases based on FACT and a weighing of a fair adjudication of individual cases based on the law of the land !!
Ah, but ... they can apparently tinker with those laws, too ....
Wow.
A sweeping judgment of all this would have me conclude that actual JUSTICE is something of a lottery in the US. You might get it. Or, a politically-obsessed judge might inject his (or her) biases into the mix to skew things.
We just don't do things that way over here !!!
Here, judges work with the laws they have ... here, they're NOT above those laws. Our judges interpret those laws. In VERY rare instances where they can judge that a law is inadequate to the proper justice of a case, they can use a very little extent of wriggle-room to allow legal precedent. HOWEVER, in such cases, our Parliament can then take a look at what they've done ... and act as a counterweight to it, be it a tightening up of provisions of a law, or, the passing of a better law.
There is another aspect of legal application involved in our UK system .. one where Parliament's own usage of its own laws can be brought into question. Then, our judiciary can have a decisive role.
This link leads to a highly complicated PDF draft ... but there's a section that might be of interest, which I'll quote here:
https://consoc.org.uk/wp-content/upl...iew_WEB-22.pdf
Our focus isn't whether one brand of politics over another should determine a 'just law', or a 'just application' of it ... these matters, to us, belong within the purview of Parliament. Ours is far more concerned with the qualitative aspect of laws as they are, & / or how they can be, or are, applied.The courts’ ability to subject decisions of the executive to an independent review of lawfulness defines our constitutional climate. There is debate over the meaning of the rule of law; but it may be thought to have a core meaning for the judiciary in the context of judicial review. There is debate too over whether it is the will of Parliament (as traditionally understood) or the constitutional principle of the rule of law (as more recently and controversially suggested by some) which provides the theoretical justification for the courts’ judicial review jurisdiction. It may be thought sensible to take this debate into account whichever justification for judicial review may be favoured: if Parliament were to legislate in a way which the courts considered to be contrary to the rule of law, the courts would need to confront whether they consider their primary obligation to be to the will of Parliament, or to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. If the courts were to conclude the latter, they may feel justified in not applying Parliament’s will.
If you look further at the PDF and would like to question what is meant by 'judicial review' in our system ... this will help ...
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the...dicial-review/
This is all a world away from skewing laws, via judgments, on the basis of a preferred political agenda !! Of course it is. We've no equivalent for what is happening in your part of the world. Partisanship is not involved. There is no 'ruling along ideological lines' here !!Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.
This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.
Last edited by Drummond; 06-09-2019 at 02:22 PM.
Thatcherite Minion
So it's a matter of balance, then, the balance being that illegals are getting away with not paying their fair share, because they take far more than they pay. OK. Thanks for this !
Banned
Its sunday!
So what are conservatives crying about today?
Smitten Senior Admin
The Dems attempts to ruin all that is good and holy.
After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown
“Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
-Abbey
Thatcherite Minion
You've just joined ?
OK.
This is a discussion forum, 'FFS'.
Do I correctly take it that your views stand in opposition to Conservatives, and their values ?
I'm inviting you to defend your own views, on this or any other pertinent thread (pertinent to the subject-matter in hand). Or, to pick subjects yourself and create threads to accommodate them. Test your views, in debate. Let's see how well they stand up to scrutiny.
Indeed, let's see IF they do, AT ALL.
Care to take up this challenge ? Others have run from it. I invite you NOT to.
Give it your very best shot.
Elessar thanked this post
High_Plains_Drifter liked this post
Unabashed Boatswain's Mate
Ahhh...a liberal noobie!
Nice introduction by you noobie!
I have lost my mind. If found, please give it a snack and return it?
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same of others"...John Wayne in "The Shootist"
A Deplorable!
Drummond thanked this post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
