PDA

View Full Version : Christy signs dream act for NJ to give in state tuition rates to illegals



garhkal
01-08-2014, 07:20 PM
Who here is a supporter of these dream acts, where illegals get in state tuition rates for colleges/universities?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-new-jersey-dream-act-101856.html

Chief_KO
01-08-2014, 07:22 PM
Put me in the NO column please.

Rusty Jones
01-08-2014, 07:28 PM
Funny, the same people who are against it (whether they live in the particular state or not) are the same people who shout "state's rights" if the federal government were to meddle in state affairs, though I doubt that would be the case if the federal government to prevent New Jersey from doing this, or add stipulations that are intended to penalize the state for doing so.

I'm of the same mind as other states who are doing the same thing: if they completed high school in that particular state, then let them have it. The parents committed the crime, not the children.

MACHINE666
01-08-2014, 09:16 PM
They should be forced to forfeit a kidney, and the money go to some poor American.

:D :D :D :D :D

garhkal
01-09-2014, 05:11 AM
Funny, the same people who are against it (whether they live in the particular state or not) are the same people who shout "state's rights" if the federal government were to meddle in state affairs, though I doubt that would be the case if the federal government to prevent New Jersey from doing this, or add stipulations that are intended to penalize the state for doing so.

I'm of the same mind as other states who are doing the same thing: if they completed high school in that particular state, then let them have it. The parents committed the crime, not the children.

So if the parents stole a laptop and gave it to the son/daughter, the kids should be able to enjoy that laptop without charges of possession of stolen property?

imnohero
01-09-2014, 09:41 AM
Not even close to the same thing, garhkal.

AJBIGJ
01-09-2014, 12:36 PM
Federalism at its finest, if NJ feels they get a good tangible or non-tangible ROI for extending these benefits, they may certainly choose to do so. Personally I find it doubtful that the in-state tuition benefits do help NJ very much, as it gives one of its citizens a degree with no guarantee that they use their additional education and skill sets to benefit the local economy in NJ. There is nothing preventing them for accepting work elsewhere. This however is a separate issue. The point is, the decision is NJ's to make, and bear the associated consequences of it as well as reap any rewards of it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-09-2014, 02:29 PM
Christie, what a putz. He is just showing how much of a progressive he really is. Just in a state like NJ, he is considered a conservative by comparison.

AJBIGJ
01-09-2014, 03:49 PM
I have to say this much though, compared to the Obamapologies we've been riddled with especially during the past year, Christie won points in terms of forthrightness!

sandsjames
01-09-2014, 04:27 PM
It's completely up to the State to make this decision. The Fed should not get involved at all. It's stupid and invites fewer people to attempt to enter the country legally which isn't surprising anymore. As long as the fed isn't funding the schools then let NJ continue to lower the economy of their already shitty state.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-09-2014, 04:36 PM
It's completely up to the State to make this decision. The Fed should not get involved at all. It's stupid and invites fewer people to attempt to enter the country legally which isn't surprising anymore. As long as the fed isn't funding the schools then let NJ continue to lower the economy of their already shitty state.

Yep, and as they should stay out of NJ for their DREAM act, the feds should stay out of AZ for their immiagration policies.

sandsjames
01-09-2014, 04:42 PM
Yep, and as they should stay out of NJ for their DREAM act, the feds should stay out of AZ for their immiagration policies.

Absolutely agree. And they should stay out of Colorado and Washington for their pot laws (as they've claimed they'll do).

Max Power
01-09-2014, 04:53 PM
Who here is a supporter of these dream acts, where illegals get in state tuition rates for colleges/universities?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-new-jersey-dream-act-101856.html

I think he's just trying to "bridge" the gap between us and them.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2014, 05:34 PM
Funny, the same people who are against it (whether they live in the particular state or not) are the same people who shout "state's rights" if the federal government were to meddle in state affairs, though I doubt that would be the case if the federal government to prevent New Jersey from doing this, or add stipulations that are intended to penalize the state for doing so.

I'm of the same mind as other states who are doing the same thing: if they completed high school in that particular state, then let them have it. The parents committed the crime, not the children.

There is no dichotomy here. Being opposed to a state granting in-state tuition is irrelevant to a state rights question. The opposition is in reference to a state law. Of course if you are going to guess at what a particular group would or wouldn't oppose in a hypothetical situation there is no real argument to be had.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2014, 05:36 PM
Federalism at its finest, if NJ feels they get a good tangible or non-tangible ROI for extending these benefits, they may certainly choose to do so. Personally I find it doubtful that the in-state tuition benefits do help NJ very much, as it gives one of its citizens a degree with no guarantee that they use their additional education and skill sets to benefit the local economy in NJ. There is nothing preventing them for accepting work elsewhere. This however is a separate issue. The point is, the decision is NJ's to make, and bear the associated consequences of it as well as reap any rewards of it.

Who has said NJ has no right to do this? I believe the positions stated have been they SHOULDN'T do this.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2014, 05:40 PM
Not even close to the same thing, garhkal.

Well, it is a bit of a reach but certainly a fair question. The parents committed a crime. Let's stop calling a sow's ear a silk purse. Illegal immigration is a crime, hence the term illegal. You can use the politically correct term 'undocumented aliens' but that is akin to calling a bank robbery a 'non account holder withdrawal'. Now the children of those criminals will reap a benefit not earned. Seems similar to me.

BTW: Let me be clear. I am totally for complete amnesty for every illegal currently in the country. Document them, start them on the path to citizenship and have them start paying taxes. Severely punish (prison) those who don't get documented (and then deport).

imnohero
01-09-2014, 06:07 PM
Is it a benefit not earned? I dunno, I suppose that would depend on whether the parents paid taxes in the state or not, since paying taxes is what "earns" the benefit (that's the veneer of justification, anyway). I'm not even sure that's the real story, since most universities offer in-state rates for students that have had residence for 1 year. (Some are 6 months) So it's not like it's a benefit acrued by parents, for children, over a long period that justifies the in-state rates.

If my university is an example, the out-of-state rates are more like a huge revenue stream for the univesity than anything to do with residence benefits.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-09-2014, 06:07 PM
Well, it is a bit of a reach but certainly a fair question. The parents committed a crime. Let's stop calling a sow's ear a silk purse. Illegal immigration is a crime, hence the term illegal. You can use the politically correct term 'undocumented aliens' but that is akin to calling a bank robbery a 'non account holder withdrawal'. Now the children of those criminals will reap a benefit not earned. Seems similar to me.

BTW: Let me be clear. I am totally for complete amnesty for every illegal currently in the country. Document them, start them on the path to citizenship and have them start paying taxes. Severely punish (prison) those who don't get documented (and then deport).
If we had a better tax system, I would agree with you. But sadly most of these illegals are low skilled and low wage workers that will recieve more from filing taxes than will pay. Especially if they have kids.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-09-2014, 06:11 PM
Is it a benefit not earned? I dunno, I suppose that would depend on whether the parents paid taxes in the state or not, since paying taxes is what "earns" the benefit (that's the veneer of justification, anyway). I'm not even sure that's the real story, since most universities offer in-state rates for students that have had residence for 1 year. (Some are 6 months) So it's not like it's a benefit acrued by parents, for children, over a long period that justifies the in-state rates.

If my university is an example, the out-of-state rates are more like a huge revenue stream for the univesity than anything to do with residence benefits.

The "out of state" rate vs in state rate proves that the colleges (mostly liberal) only charge up to what the government will back in loans. Hence why the rate goes up AFTER the government raises the amount its willing to back. Its why the tuition loans are the biggest growing bubble of all time, bigger than medical and housing bubbles. And libs wonder why it cost so much to see doctors when they have to pay back almost half a million in college loans now a days for 8 plus years of school.

garhkal
01-09-2014, 07:01 PM
Not even close to the same thing, garhkal.

And what does come close? Both are instances where the parent did an illegal act that the child is benefiting from initially but the laws should not allow it.


If we had a better tax system, I would agree with you. But sadly most of these illegals are low skilled and low wage workers that will recieve more from filing taxes than will pay. Especially if they have kids.


plus mnay get paid under the table as is, so don't pay income tax.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2014, 08:10 PM
Is it a benefit not earned? I dunno, I suppose that would depend on whether the parents paid taxes in the state or not, since paying taxes is what "earns" the benefit (that's the veneer of justification, anyway). I'm not even sure that's the real story, since most universities offer in-state rates for students that have had residence for 1 year. (Some are 6 months) So it's not like it's a benefit acrued by parents, for children, over a long period that justifies the in-state rates.

If my university is an example, the out-of-state rates are more like a huge revenue stream for the univesity than anything to do with residence benefits.


Of course it is a benefit not earned. If the parent's mere presence in the US is a crime how does one claim any benefit of citizenship is earned? Long term illegal residence should count the same as long term legal residence?

Of course, this objection can't real extend to so-called anchor babies as they are by current definition citizens.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2014, 08:12 PM
If we had a better tax system, I would agree with you. But sadly most of these illegals are low skilled and low wage workers that will recieve more from filing taxes than will pay. Especially if they have kids.

That is assuming all of these immigrants would not better their circumstances. I choose to believe many would. I know my ancestors did.

imnohero
01-10-2014, 12:38 AM
Of course it is a benefit not earned. If the parent's mere presence in the US is a crime how does one claim any benefit of citizenship is earned? Long term illegal residence should count the same as long term legal residence?

Of course, this objection can't real extend to so-called anchor babies as they are by current definition citizens.

In state tuition is tied to state residence, not citizenship. They are different things with different rules governing them.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 02:09 AM
In state tuition is tied to state residence, not citizenship. They are different things with different rules governing them.

Aside from the specious argument I think you will find that the language in most states requires legal residency.

imnohero
01-10-2014, 02:40 AM
I looked at a few states for tuition "residence requirements"... NJ among them, only require that you live in the state for a certain period of time. (NJ was one year) I was somewhat surprised to find that "tuition residence" isn't the same as "legal residence." Legal residence seems to usually require registering to vote and other things, not just living in the state.

The only actual text I was able to find of the law was as a bill, linked in this article: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/12/20/dream-act-passes-grants-in-state-tuition-to-undocumented-immigrants/?p=all

the part that says the requirements for students to get in-state tuition:


the student:
(1) attended high school in this State for three or more years;
(2) graduated from a high school in this State or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this State;
(3) registers as an entering student or is currently enrolled in a public institution of higher education not earlier than the fall semester of the 2013-2014 academic year;
(4) in the case of a person without lawful immigration status, files an affidavit with the institution of higher education stating that the student has filed an application to legalize his immigration status or will file an application as soon as he is eligible to do so; and
(5) in the case of a person without lawful immigration status, meets the eligibility criteria, and has submitted a request to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for consideration of the United States Department of Homeland Security’s deferred action for childhood arrivals process.

As I said, this is the text of the bill, I wasn't able to quickly find text of what Christy signed, so it might be different. But these requirement seem pretty reasonable to me for the kid to qualify for in-state rate.

I just don't see this as that big a deal. If I were "king for a day", I reform the entire immigration process...it should take months, not years, to become a citizen. Put up an "immigration center" in every state, port and point of entry and write down names, hand out IDs, and give 'em 6 months to take the test. We've done it in the past, why can't we do it now?

garhkal
01-10-2014, 06:04 AM
Of course it is a benefit not earned. If the parent's mere presence in the US is a crime how does one claim any benefit of citizenship is earned? Long term illegal residence should count the same as long term legal residence?

Of course, this objection can't real extend to so-called anchor babies as they are by current definition citizens.

Perhaps that whole anchor baby aspect needs to change. Neither parent here legally, birth here does not auto grant citizenship to the child.


I just don't see this as that big a deal. If I were "king for a day", I reform the entire immigration process...it should take months, not years, to become a citizen. Put up an "immigration center" in every state, port and point of entry and write down names, hand out IDs, and give 'em 6 months to take the test. We've done it in the past, why can't we do it now?

Mostly cause we have limits on how many we can take.

Rusty Jones
01-10-2014, 12:18 PM
Perhaps that whole anchor baby aspect needs to change. Neither parent here legally, birth here does not auto grant citizenship to the child.

Not sure if it should really be that simple. While I lived in Texas, remember all of the horror stories of high school students who were illegals, but had been in the US since they were infants and toddlers, and had never been to Mexico since, and don't speak a word of Spanish... and ended up getting deported. Dropped off in a country that is totally foreign to them, after they had been completely Americanized. Something like that shouldn't be happening.

Rusty Jones
01-10-2014, 12:25 PM
Christie, what a putz. He is just showing how much of a progressive he really is. Just in a state like NJ, he is considered a conservative by comparison.


I think he's just trying to "bridge" the gap between us and them.

I actually see him as more aligned with pre-Southern Strategy Republicans, than with the post-New Deal Democrats. Remember that short period of time (before most of us were born) when both parties existed, and actually competed for votes from ALL Americans? If more Republicans followed Chrisy's lead, we could see a return of that.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-10-2014, 12:28 PM
Not sure if it should really be that simple. While I lived in Texas, remember all of the horror stories of high school students who were illegals, but had been in the US since they were infants and toddlers, and had never been to Mexico since, and don't speak a word of Spanish... and ended up getting deported. Dropped off in a country that is totally foreign to them, after they had been completely Americanized. Something like that shouldn't be happening.

But its ok for their parents to be in a foreign land that they know nothing about the language? The kids can learn spanish and usually do because their parents still speak it fluently. And its not like the INS drops kids off at some random corner in Mexico without the parental supervision.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-10-2014, 12:31 PM
I actually see him as more aligned with pre-Southern Strategy Republicans, than with the post-New Deal Democrats. Remember that short period of time (before most of us were born) when both parties existed, and actually competed for votes from ALL Americans? If more Republicans followed Chrisy's lead, we could see a return of that.

Its a good thought. Christie's "scandal" is the progressive side of the GOP viewed through the lefts eyes. Now switch it around and wonder why there hasnt been this much investigative talk from the left's media for Bengahzi or the IRS scandal or fast and furious where people actually died from a direct result of the government inneptitude.

Rusty Jones
01-10-2014, 12:32 PM
But its ok for their parents to be in a foreign land that they know nothing about the language? The kids can learn spanish and usually do because their parents still speak it fluently. And its not like the INS drops kids off at some random corner in Mexico without the parental supervision.

And, to no one's surprise... you say some shit like this.

AJBIGJ
01-10-2014, 01:35 PM
Who has said NJ has no right to do this? I believe the positions stated have been they SHOULDN'T do this.

Did someone have to actually specifically say "they had no right" for me to state my opinion on the matter? As to the latter, I'm not a voting citizen in NJ, I see no human rights being violated, it's up to them whether they should or should not. If this boosts or tanks their economy, the responsibility is theirs.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 01:38 PM
I looked at a few states for tuition "residence requirements"... NJ among them, only require that you live in the state for a certain period of time. (NJ was one year) I was somewhat surprised to find that "tuition residence" isn't the same as "legal residence." Legal residence seems to usually require registering to vote and other things, not just living in the state.

The only actual text I was able to find of the law was as a bill, linked in this article: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/12/20/dream-act-passes-grants-in-state-tuition-to-undocumented-immigrants/?p=all

the part that says the requirements for students to get in-state tuition:



As I said, this is the text of the bill, I wasn't able to quickly find text of what Christy signed, so it might be different. But these requirement seem pretty reasonable to me for the kid to qualify for in-state rate.

I just don't see this as that big a deal. If I were "king for a day", I reform the entire immigration process...it should take months, not years, to become a citizen. Put up an "immigration center" in every state, port and point of entry and write down names, hand out IDs, and give 'em 6 months to take the test. We've done it in the past, why can't we do it now?

That is the gist of the argument in this thread. The NJ Dream Act allows for in-state tuition to those who are not legal residents.

imnohero
01-10-2014, 01:39 PM
birth here does not auto grant citizenship

This would be a fundamental change to the founding ideas of our country and to the constitution.

AJBIGJ
01-10-2014, 01:42 PM
This would be a fundamental change to the founding ideas of our country and to the constitution.

Yeah, it really is hard to get past this arbitrarily;
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 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.

imnohero
01-10-2014, 01:45 PM
That is the gist of the argument in this thread. The NJ Dream Act allows for in-state tuition to those who are not legal residents.

You don't have to meet "legal residence" requirements for the state of NJ to get in-state tuition. Earlier you said the difference between state residence and citizenship was specious but you seem to be conflating the two when they are not the same thing.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 01:48 PM
Did someone have to actually specifically say "they had no right" for me to state my opinion on the matter? As to the latter, I'm not a voting citizen in NJ, I see no human rights being violated, it's up to them whether they should or should not. If this boosts or tanks their economy, the responsibility is theirs.

Sorry, I must have quoted you when meaning to quote somebody else. I actually agree with your post. It is a NJ decision, whether or not you agree with it. If the voters of NJ don't like the law they can attempt to get it changed or repealed via the ballot box.

AJBIGJ
01-10-2014, 01:51 PM
Sorry, I must have quoted you when meaning to quote somebody else. I actually agree with your post. It is a NJ decision, whether or not you agree with it. If the voters of NJ don't like the law they can attempt to get it changed or repealed via the ballot box.

Precisely my feelings on the matter.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 01:57 PM
You don't have to meet "legal residence" requirements for the state of NJ to get in-state tuition. Earlier you said the difference between state residence and citizenship was specious but you seem to be conflating the two when they are not the same thing.

There is only one kind of 'residency' (thus it is a specious argument.....based on idiomatic semantics). The new law now modifies what the procedure for children of undocumented aliens to become eligible for in-state tuition will be. For example a principal method of determining the residency of an applicant has always been a copy of a NJ tax return. Not many illegal aliens will meet this requirement. With the passage of this law they can now file an "Application and Affidavit for Nonresident Tuition Exemption for Undocumented Students Residing in New Jersey" This would grant them an exemption from the traditional residency requirement it does not grant them legal residency. There is not other kind of residency.

I actually have no real problem with the basic issue of in-state tuition but the other part of the law will allow for these children to compete on an equal footing with all others for financial aid. This is where I have an issue.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-10-2014, 02:04 PM
And, to no one's surprise... you say some shit like this.

Because if this was a dem that perpetrated this construction slowdown, all that would have been said would be "What difference does it make now?" And the media would have shut up about it and only a promise of an investigation would be put out there. He is a big government progressive GOP and this is how progressives work. Only difference is, he actually claimed some responsibility and actually fired the person who was in charge of traffic jam. How many people were fired from the IRS targeting TEA parties?

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-10-2014, 02:06 PM
Because if this was a dem that perpetrated this construction slowdown, all that would have been said would be "What difference does it make now?" And the media would have shut up about it and only a promise of an investigation would be put out there. He is a big government progressive GOP and this is how progressives work. Only difference is, he actually claimed some responsibility and actually fired the person who was in charge of traffic jam. How many people were fired from the IRS targeting TEA parties?

My point that kind of ties to this thread is the fact that Christie is a progressive on the GOP side, allowing the DREAM act in his state is fine, but will be just like Romney running for POTUS trying to deny being the father of Obamacare.

imnohero
01-10-2014, 02:08 PM
The news reporting is that the law drops the financial aid eligibility. Thus, you have no problem.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 05:34 PM
The news reporting is that the law drops the financial aid eligibility. Thus, you have no problem.

So it would appear. I find interesting though the fact that there is up to 825,000 illegal aliens in NJ. Will be curious to see results of the law after a year or so. The cost differences between the in and out of state tuitions is significant.

Measure Man
01-10-2014, 06:33 PM
As long as the fed isn't funding the schools then let NJ continue to lower the economy of their already shitty state.

NJ is an awesome state.

garhkal
01-10-2014, 08:10 PM
Because if this was a dem that perpetrated this construction slowdown, all that would have been said would be "What difference does it make now?" And the media would have shut up about it and only a promise of an investigation would be put out there. He is a big government progressive GOP and this is how progressives work. Only difference is, he actually claimed some responsibility and actually fired the person who was in charge of traffic jam. How many people were fired from the IRS targeting TEA parties?

Or from bengazi, or from Fast and furious.. Or any of a long list of other incidences where a govt agency screwed the pooch.

TJMAC77SP
01-10-2014, 09:06 PM
NJ is an awesome state.

I here that a lot here in NC..............from all the people who have left that state. Aside from their obvious accent and volume of voice, it takes them on average about 12 seconds to announce in some way they are from 'Jersey'.

Capt Alfredo
01-10-2014, 09:19 PM
How many people were fired from the IRS targeting TEA parties?

Suggest you do some more research on this canard.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/irs-targeting/

sandsjames
01-10-2014, 09:41 PM
I here that a lot here in NC..............from all the people who have left that state. Aside from their obvious accent and volume of voice, it takes them on average about 12 seconds to announce in some way they are from 'Jersey'.

Not that they need to announce it. The most annoying fucking accent on the most conceited people (generalization) in the country.

Rusty Jones
01-11-2014, 01:36 AM
Being from Delaware, I'm from arm's length away from Jersey... and Jersey is a shithole. Wilmington is an eyesore on Delaware, but if you took the city of Wilmington and turned it into a state, you'd get New Jersey.

Measure Man
01-12-2014, 11:15 PM
Sounds like a lot of people never spent much time in NJ.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-13-2014, 12:13 PM
Suggest you do some more research on this canard.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/irs-targeting/

You're serious with this? 3 out of 100 were liberal who were "targeted" and you call that "balanced"? What would you say if a mass layoff of workers happened and 97 were black while the defence said "we fired 3 white men as well".

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 01:25 PM
You're serious with this? 3 out of 100 were liberal who were "targeted" and you call that "balanced"? What would you say if a mass layoff of workers happened and 97 were black while the defence said "we fired 3 white men as well".

The latter could be legit depending on the demographics of the workforce, I would use another analogy.

TJMAC77SP
01-13-2014, 01:37 PM
The latter could be legit depending on the demographics of the workforce, I would use another analogy.

Fair point but I would assume WJ was asserting the hypothetical workforce mirrored US demographics. If so, his point is also fair.

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 01:49 PM
Fair point but I would assume WJ was asserting the hypothetical workforce mirrored US demographics. If so, his point is also fair.

That does bring up an interesting point, I personally think the demographic composition of most "workforces" only rarely do turn out as such. I would be interested to see a study of how often workforce demographics are a genuine "melting pot" locally and how often they tend to favor one specific demographic over the next. I would venture a hypothesis at the outset that there are a lot of larger local businesses that seem to employ a much larger majority of a specific subset of a certain race (often based on the average composition of the local community). For instance, in many communities it probably would not be irregular for the number of black people to outnumber white people at a ratio of 97:3, or vice versa. I wonder if anyone has researched this in detail?

(I acknowledge this is an absolute topic derailment)

TJMAC77SP
01-13-2014, 01:57 PM
That does bring up an interesting point, I personally think the demographic composition of most "workforces" only rarely do turn out as such. I would be interested to see a study of how often workforce demographics are a genuine "melting pot" locally and how often they tend to favor one specific demographic over the next. I would venture a hypothesis at the outset that there are a lot of larger local businesses that seem to employ a much larger majority of a specific subset of a certain race (often based on the average composition of the local community). For instance, in many communities it probably would not be irregular for the number of black people to outnumber white people at a ratio of 97:3, or vice versa. I wonder if anyone has researched this in detail?

(I acknowledge this is an absolute topic derailment)

I would agree with you. I know the last company I worked for was unbalanced although I also know of the incredible lengths they went to trying to balance it.

AJBIGJ
01-13-2014, 02:05 PM
I would agree with you. I know the last company I worked for was unbalanced although I also know of the incredible lengths they went to trying to balance it.

New thread time I think!

TJMAC77SP
01-13-2014, 02:12 PM
Fair enough. Apologies to the MTF for the near thread-jack...................

Rainmaker
02-08-2014, 06:05 PM
Christie, what a putz. He is just showing how much of a progressive he really is. Just in a state like NJ, he is considered a conservative by comparison.

The mere fact that this POS was ever considered to be " a Moderate", in the first place, shows just how far our societal decline has gone. and Why the hell can't this Fat Bastard stop eating? While, Rainmaker would most Definitely take Restaurant or stock tips from him. Any man under 60, who don't have enough self control to push his ass away from having 3 deserts is not fit to lead a country. The way Rainmaker see it. Once a man over 60 you free to fall off the wagon though. NomSayin?

ACME_MAN
10-07-2015, 01:17 AM
It's the same situation here in California and it all gets down to votes at election time, especially if you're a Republican. Christie can't afford to alienate the hispanic vote. Even though he probably gets a small percentage of it, he doesn't want to risk losing even that.

MikeKerriii
10-07-2015, 02:01 PM
Who here is a supporter of these dream acts, where illegals get in state tuition rates for colleges/universities?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/chris-christie-new-jersey-dream-act-101856.html

Why not? They grew up in that state.

TJMAC77SP
10-07-2015, 02:15 PM
Boys, boys............CHECK THE DATE OF THE THREAD !!!

MikeKerriii
10-07-2015, 02:17 PM
So if the parents stole a laptop and gave it to the son/daughter, the kids should be able to enjoy that laptop without charges of possession of stolen property?

How did you get there? The parents stole nothing, and the kid is not in possession of other peoples property/

MikeKerriii
10-07-2015, 02:24 PM
Yep, and as they should stay out of NJ for their DREAM act, the feds should stay out of AZ for their immiagration policies.

Is the concept of the supremacy of federal law a too complicated for you?

"Article 6 clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'

The states have to obey US laws and the Constitution, the federal courts and congress can override state laws at their discretion. That is built into the Constitution and has been since the founding.

MikeKerriii
10-07-2015, 02:30 PM
Perhaps that whole anchor baby aspect needs to change. Neither parent here legally, birth here does not auto grant citizenship to the child. The US Constitution says that you are wrong, The 14th is very simply worded an quite clear. If you are born in the US and subject to its laws, you are a US citizen. I have yet to see a credible argument the the 14th doesn't apply to any child born in the US.

Rainmaker
10-07-2015, 05:11 PM
The US Constitution says that you are wrong, The 14th is very simply worded an quite clear. If you are born in the US and subject to its laws, you are a US citizen. I have yet to see a credible argument the the 14th doesn't apply to any child born in the US.

There are many legal scholars who disagree with you. But, Thanks anyway for the clarification of your opinion Justice Bader Ginsburg....

Fortunately, for the American Citizenry, Their next President (Mr. Donald J. Trump) will soon be testing this theory of yours in court!

MikeKerriii
10-07-2015, 07:59 PM
There are many legal scholars who disagree with you. But, Thanks anyway for the clarification of your opinion Justice Bader Ginsburg....

Fortunately, for the American Citizenry, Their next President (Mr. Donald J. Trump) will soon be testing this theory of yours in court!
Name one of those legal scholars please.

President trump is about as likely as the sun rising it the west.

i know you have a performance nice art/ trolling thing going on, but try, at least, to keep in the range of sanity or the effect gets ruined.

Rainmaker
10-07-2015, 08:37 PM
Name one of those legal scholars please.

President trump is about as likely as the sun rising it the west.

i know you have a performance nice art/ trolling thing going on, but try, at least, to keep in the range of sanity or the effect gets ruined.

That's a capital "T" in Trump. Show some Respect for the next leader of the free world Mikey!

garhkal
10-08-2015, 04:41 AM
How did you get there? The parents stole nothing, and the kid is not in possession of other peoples property/

That was in relation to those saying "Don't punish the kids for the crimes of the parents"..
WE ALREADY DO so. as evidenced by that remark of mine. If daddy breaks the law and uses the fruits of it to buy XYZ for his kid(s), and gets caught, the kid(s) lose said item.

If your pappa dies owing debt, YOu as the offspring are now responsible for it.

So we already DO punish kids for the 'sins' of the parent(s)..

so why should kids of illegal immigrants get a free pass?


The US Constitution says that you are wrong, The 14th is very simply worded an quite clear. If you are born in the US and subject to its laws, you are a US citizen. I have yet to see a credible argument the the 14th doesn't apply to any child born in the US.

How's about the "Equal protection" part which states
[The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. T]

HOW can someone still a citizen of a foreign country be considered to be under US Jurisdiction?

MikeKerriii
10-09-2015, 02:48 AM
That was in relation to those saying "Don't punish the kids for the crimes of the parents"..
WE ALREADY DO so. as evidenced by that remark of mine. If daddy breaks the law and uses the fruits of it to buy XYZ for his kid(s), and gets caught, the kid(s) lose said item.

If your pappa dies owing debt, You as the offspring are now responsible for it.

So we already DO punish kids for the 'sins' of the parent(s)..

so why should kids of illegal immigrants get a free pass?
the parents estate is liable for the debts, the money, the children are never liable under US law, Where did you get the idea the idea they were? The Imaginary kids should not be published for a law that exists soleyin your imagination?



How's about the "Equal protection" part which states
[The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. T]

HOW can someone still a citizen of a foreign country be considered to be under US Jurisdiction? By your logic we can't try a drug dealer that is arrested inside the US unless he is a US citizen, the court has to have jurisdiction for a trial to take place. jurisdiction means being subject to the laws and courts of the United States, and with the exception of people protected by specific treaties of or diplomats with privileged means anyplace where US law is binding. Read the Wong Kim Ark SC rulingt for the binding precedent.

MikeKerriii
10-09-2015, 02:55 AM
That's a capital "T" in Trump. Show some Respect for the next leader of the free world Mikey!
just another wannabe "great man on a white horse'. and they are all slime and always have been. Next he will be bragging about how the trains will run in time.