Expect the unexpected!

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

In the Constitution, anyone in this country is entitled to all the benefits/responsibilities of anyone else in the country, despite not being citizens. The only thing expressly disallowed by non-citizens is the right to vote, and the right to hold the office of the President.

Over the years, statute upon statute has been added concerning immigration... and, today, more than 75% of people polled believe the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in this country are not legal citizens, when the Constitution, itself, states they are. The Constitution, itself, has never been amended. Until such time as it is, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." There is an undocumented immigrant. "Illegal alien" was a phrase coined a long, long time ago to serve one purpose: inflame people against a group and, by doing so, get more votes.

Eric, the Constitution is not the document you seem to think. I don't recall seeing any mention of the Medicare or Medicaid programs in it, nor the various states' Departments of Education, etc. These are functions that are not expressly held by the federal government, and have devolved to the various states.

As you said above, "Over the years, statute upon statute has been added concerning immigration..."

Allow me to quote from the US Constitution, Amendment 14:
(Yes, the Constitution actually has been amended a few (27) times)

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. (emphasis added)
... and
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I do not see anything in there about citizenship without going through the naturalization requirements. And it sorta looks like section 5 allows them to pass "statute upon statute".

Also, Article 1, Sections 2 & 3, requires Representatives and Senators to be "Citizens of the United States" for seven and nine years, respectively.


I believe your figure as you say, "more than 75% of people polled believe the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in this country are not legal citizens, when the Constitution, itself, states they are." To me, that is merely one more example of the appalling failings of our educational systems, where it is more important to ensure everyone graduates (with high marks) than that they actually learn any of the material that is supposed to be taught. (save for another rant) That the child IS a citizen is absolutely true, and is a major reason for so many pregnant women to come to the United States, legally or not, to obtain that citizenship. This gives an advantage in obtaining naturalization, as the parent of a citizen.

Again, I do not object to providing services for those who are entitled, but on the Medicare.gov site, you will see the following:

Medicare eligibility:
People age 65 and older who are citizens or legal residents of the United States and who have worked (or their spouse has worked) for at least 10 years (or 40 quarters) in Medicare-covered employment.(emphasis added)

Legal residents do not include those who sneak across borders or stow away aboard ships and aircraft destined for the United States. Those same statutes you addressed also do provide for the legal residence of those who are validly seeking asylum in this country.

All I ask is that they follow the rules and obey the law, just as I would expect for myself or any other citizen. Hundreds of thousands have done so, even to the point of placing their lives at risk in the service of this country in our Armed Forces. I have nothing but respect for those brave men and women. I welcome them and wish them well.

.

Originally Posted by Five-Flags

Eric, the Constitution is not the document you seem to think. I don't recall seeing any mention of the Medicare or Medicaid programs in it, nor the various states' Departments of Education, etc. These are functions that are not expressly held by the federal government, and have devolved to the various states.

As you said above, "Over the years, statute upon statute has been added concerning immigration..."

Allow me to quote from the US Constitution, Amendment 14:
(Yes, the Constitution actually has been amended a few (27) times)

1. All persons born or naturalized...

All persons born in the United States.

Mamma and Pappa (c'mon, let's be honest... when we start talking "illegal alien," we're really saying/thinking: "Mexican") might not be in this country legally.

But if they have a child while in the United States, unless that child is born on the grounds of their country's embassy (an embassy being considered "native soil" to that embassy's home country), that child is, by birth, a United States citizen.

As for what entitlements Mamma and Pappa might receive, if any, I point out that you refer to statute limiting entitlements; the Constitution has no such limitation, except deferring to statute. However, those statutes are not absolute - with just a bang of a gavel, a judge (although I would think it would have to be a federal judge) can invalidate any and all statutes and grant any immigrant immediate refugee status, if they so desire.

"Illegal aliens" is nothing more than this year's election campaign wedge issue. Two and four years ago, it was the horrible spectre of thousands upon thousands of homosexuals setting up shop in the suburbs. Two years from now, it'll be something else.

To me the big issue isn't uneducated, untrained people coming to this country to take unskilled laborer jobs. To me, the big issue is the high paying, technically advanced jobs being moved to India and China, were corporations can pay wages that, in this country, would be illegal.

Originally Posted by KSagal

My understanding is not nearly the same as yours. There were several admendments. The rights of this nation are for citizens, I wish you would offer up the clause in the constitution that says that children born of people here illegally are citizens of the US. I do not believe it is in the constitution at all, but in legislation from the mid 20th century.

Please tell me of where in the constitution your items are. I am at work, but I will reread my copy of the constituton tonight and look for your passages...

When I speak of the Constitution, I automatically include the Bill of Rights; I believe the appropriate Amendment is either the 13th or the 14th.

If your thinking were correct, Karl, that children of undocumented immigrants, by virtue of being the children of undocumented immigrants, are themselves undocumented immigrants, how many generations have to pass before that lineage is, finally considered to be American citizens?

The only reason I ask... outside of Native Americans, and those immigrants who have gone through necessary channels to obtain United States citizenship... if the criteria of "children of illegals are, themselves, illegal," then the overwhelming majority of Caucasian inhabitants of this country would then be "illegal aliens."

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

When I speak of the Constitution, I automatically include the Bill of Rights; I believe the appropriate Amendment is either the 13th or the 14th.

If your thinking were correct, Karl, that children of undocumented immigrants, by virtue of being the children of undocumented immigrants, are themselves undocumented immigrants, how many generations have to pass before that lineage is, finally considered to be American citizens?
As many as it takes till they comply with the law...


The only reason I ask... outside of Native Americans, I thought common theory is that they came accross the Bearing Straigts. and those immigrants who have gone through necessary channels to obtain United States citizenship... if the criteria of "children of illegals are, themselves, illegal," then the overwhelming majority of Caucasian inhabitants of this country would then be "illegal aliens."

I do not choose to speak for all. I will speak for a few that I know.

My grandparents came to the Unitied States as children with their parents, to escape the progroms of the Ukraine around the time of the Bolsheveik revolution. I think they went thru Ellis Island, but I am not sure. I do know there were sponsorship requirements, and other requirements to be allowed in, and I believe some of the siblings did not make it for some reason. (One was my great Uncle Karl, who made the less than appropriate choice to go to Germany)

I do know that my family came from roots, from people who did what was required to become citizens. They were very proud of their accomplishments. My Wife's great grandparents were born in Ireland, and have their own stories.

I have a number of friends who came from other countries. I have been to more than one party, where a person got their citizenship, and even helped one friend study for his test.

My take on illegal immigration, among other issues, is that it is a slap in the face for all those who worked hard and earned their way in.

I see it the same as we were waiting in line for an hour or more trying to get in to the new star wars movie, or another of the star trek series, and as we near the door, anticipation high, and some slob just walks in from the street, and goes to the velvet rope off to the left, and just steps over it, and goes into the theatre. Makes me mad.

It makes me more mad when I hear people say they are tax paying people. That is a simple and absolute lie. They cannot and they do not. If they steal an identity so they can, they are benifiting from that crime, and a person cannot steal something and have it, without also denying that same thing to the person they stole it from.

The government is complicit in this as well, as they sometimes issue tax id's with no questions. Some do this as well, and it is also wrong.

I do not so much hold it against the poor worker who steals their way in to make a better life for themselves or their family. Many of these people are not bad people. I hold it against the employer who takes advantage. I hold it against the IRS for issuing tax id numbers. I hold it against the Government of Mexico who publishes a pamphlet showing tips making it easier to steal their way into the United States...

One argument you hear is in favor of the children of illegal aliens. People say that it is wrong to hold the crimes of the parents against the children. So, if I rob a bank, and give the money to my kids, they get to keep it, right?

For me, outsourcing the high tech jobs out of the country is also a travestry.

In speaking to a friend (A very left of center one...) he had a great idea, in my mind...

He suggested that if a company wants to outsource their jobs to another country, and lays off workers here, they have to pay the unemployment insurance, instead of having the government do it. This gives them an incentive to help the people find jobs, or it has to keep them on the payroll for a year. It makes it far more expensive to lay off entire departments. This program would not apply to seasonal layoffs, or growth and shrinkage in a company, just outsourcing.

I like it.

Originally Posted by KSagal

... (my) take on illegal immigration, among other issues, is that it is a slap in the face for all those who worked hard and earned their way in.

I agree, completely. For the people who skirted the procedure and, to further use your analogy, butted themselves to the front of the line.

...snip...

Originally Posted by KSagal

It makes me more mad when I hear people say they are tax paying people. That is a simple and absolute lie. They cannot and they do not. If they steal an identity so they can, they are benifiting from that crime, and a person cannot steal something and have it, without also denying that same thing to the person they stole it from.

Unless these workers are being paid in cash, under-the-table, Karl, they are paying taxes; do you honestly believe there's a payroll department for any company (or even a bookkeepper for some small company) who's going to risk an IRS audit by not deducting, and remitting, appropriate taxes? Yes, the Social Security Number attached to the paycheck may be completely bogus - which will eventually be caught. It may be someone else's, legitimate, Social Security number, in which case the taxes paid are simply absorbed into the system. But that undocumented alien will not be able to get an income tax refund, under that SSN, without immediately triggering a cross-check of name/number.

Originally Posted by KSagal

... (o)ne argument you hear is in favor of the children of illegal aliens. People say that it is wrong to hold the crimes of the parents against the children. So, if I rob a bank, and give the money to my kids, they get to keep it, right?

Actually, yes, unless the bank can sufficiently prove the money you gave your children came from the proceeds of the bank robbery.

Now, when you're tried and, presumably, convicted, you will most likely be ordered to pay restitution, which would be YOU going into your pocketbook, and taking away money from your family to reimburse the bank. But as for the bank simply taking the money away from your children - it's not going to happen. Though you may have committed a monetary crime, and you may have, at one point, been in possession of currency that, rightfully, belonged to the bank, in order for the bank to come into your home and take money from your children, directly, they would have to prove that the actual physical money in your child's possession was the actual physical currency that was unlawfully removed from their possession.

In my introduction to SegwayChat, I wrote of my Ebay experience. Say I hadn't found and contacted the original owner of that 167... his Segway would still be missing; through clues, the police might have been able to find the three boys, they may have been convicted. In the interim, I simply got rid of that 167 and, ultimately, purchased Gilligan. The gentleman who owned the original, stolen 167 would not be able to come into my home and take Gilligan. He might prevail in a civil suit for reimbursement from me... but odds are, he wouldn't, as the criminal court would, probably, have ordered restitution to the original owner by the thieves.

Originally Posted by KSagal

For me, outsourcing the high tech jobs out of the country is also a travesty.

In speaking to a friend (A very left of center one...) he had a great idea, in my mind...

He suggested that if a company wants to outsource their jobs to another country, and lays off workers here, they have to pay the unemployment insurance, instead of having the government do it. This gives them an incentive to help the people find jobs, or it has to keep them on the payroll for a year. It makes it far more expensive to lay off entire departments. This program would not apply to seasonal layoffs, or growth and shrinkage in a company, just outsourcing.

I like it.

So do I. When Bill's company was doing outsourcing a few years ago, would you believe they actually had the nerve to ask the people currently holding those jobs that were being outsourced to India to go to India - on the company's dime - and train those people who were taking the jobs?

Bill thought that was absurd. Hell, I'd have gone... and told those people EXACTLY what workers were being paid to do those jobs in the United States, as well as what benefit packages those workers were getting.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

I agree, completely. For the people who skirted the procedure and, to further use your analogy, butted themselves to the front of the line.

...snip...



Unless these workers are being paid in cash, under-the-table, Karl, they are paying taxes; do you honestly believe there's a payroll department for any company (or even a bookkeepper for some small company) who's going to risk an IRS audit by not deducting, and remitting, appropriate taxes? Yes, the Social Security Number attached to the paycheck may be completely bogus - which will eventually be caught. It may be someone else's, legitimate, Social Security number, in which case the taxes paid are simply absorbed into the system. But that undocumented alien will not be able to get an income tax refund, under that SSN, without immediately triggering a cross-check of name/number.



Actually, yes, unless the bank can sufficiently prove the money you gave your children came from the proceeds of the bank robbery.

Now, when you're tried and, presumably, convicted, you will most likely be ordered to pay restitution, which would be YOU going into your pocketbook, and taking away money from your family to reimburse the bank. But as for the bank simply taking the money away from your children - it's not going to happen. Though you may have committed a monetary crime, and you may have, at one point, been in possession of currency that, rightfully, belonged to the bank, in order for the bank to come into your home and take money from your children, directly, they would have to prove that the actual physical money in your child's possession was the actual physical currency that was unlawfully removed from their possession.

In my introduction to SegwayChat, I wrote of my Ebay experience. Say I hadn't found and contacted the original owner of that 167... his Segway would still be missing; through clues, the police might have been able to find the three boys, they may have been convicted. In the interim, I simply got rid of that 167 and, ultimately, purchased Gilligan. Nice try. I did not say that my kids had laundred the money as you would have done if you sold the stolen seg and used the money to buy giligan. if you still had the stolen seg, the police would have taken it from you, and you would then have the burden to get restitution from the theves that sold you stolen property. That is why criminals do launder their ill gotten gains. The gentleman who owned the original, stolen 167 would not be able to come into my home and take Gilligan. He might prevail in a civil suit for reimbursement from me... but odds are, he wouldn't, as the criminal court would, probably, have ordered restitution to the original owner by the thieves.



So do I. When Bill's company was doing outsourcing a few years ago, would you believe they actually had the nerve to ask the people currently holding those jobs that were being outsourced to India to go to India - on the company's dime - and train those people who were taking the jobs?

Bill thought that was absurd. Hell, I'd have gone... and told those people EXACTLY what workers were being paid to do those jobs in the United States, as well as what benefit packages those workers were getting.

I bet Bill's company had not downside to that outsourcing. My plan would make them think twice.

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

In my introduction to SegwayChat, I wrote of my Ebay experience. Say I hadn't found and contacted the original owner of that 167... his Segway would still be missing; through clues, the police might have been able to find the three boys, they may have been convicted. In the interim, I simply got rid of that 167 and, ultimately, purchased Gilligan...

Originally Posted by KSagal

Nice try. I did not say that my kids had laundred the money as you would have done if you sold the stolen seg and used the money to buy giligan. if you still had the stolen seg, the police would have taken it from you, and you would then have the burden to get restitution from the theves that sold you stolen property. That is why criminals do launder their ill gotten gains...

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

The gentleman who owned the original, stolen 167 would not be able to come into my home and take Gilligan. He might prevail in a civil suit for reimbursement from me... but odds are, he wouldn't, as the criminal court would, probably, have ordered restitution to the original owner by the thieves.

Karl, I didn't even think of anyone intentionally committing a crime - I was referring to completely innocent third parties possibly being the beneficiaries of an illegal activity. The action of complicity in a new crime would, of course, completely change the composition of the situation.

If I hadn't immediately known that 167 was stolen - or, I should say, immediately strongly suspected - and had just purchased it, and received it without keys and power cord, I think any consumer would have contacted the seller via Ebay - as I did. But the seller, had Ebay been the only avenue open to the purchaser, simply would not have responded. Eventually, the purchaser would have done something with the 167. We'd all like to think they'd have done the RIGHT thing and contacted Segway, either INC or a dealership, if one was local to them, but they would have been just as likely to simply throw it away (or, much more likely, re-list it on Ebay, sell it for a couple of hundred dollars, and let the "it doesn't start" be the next buyer's problem. Or, if they listed it honestly as "do not have keys for this, so don't know how it runs," and sold it, then they'd would be completely in the clear having made full disclosure.)

That would, of course, NOT be the morally "right" thing to do - at least in my book. In my book, the morally right thing to do is what I did. But there is no legal requirement for me to do what I did.

So, barring any knowledge of the item being stolen, and having, legitimately, "gotten rid of it," I would not have been converting the property, but simply trying to recoup my own loss to some extent. I then purchase Gilligan, the original owner of the 167 discovers that, at one point, his 167 passed through my hands. He cannot lay legal claim to Gilligan simply because he lost a Segway and I have one.

Had the original owner made a claim to his insurance company, and received some sort of pay-off for the stolen Segway, the water would get even muddier...

So, unless the bank could take, say, a $100 bill from your child's pocket, and prove the serial number on that bill was the same serial number on a $100 bill that had been unlawfully removed from their possession, the bank could not take money from your child - unless, as you say, your adult child is knowingly involved in the conversion of those proceeds.

You know, like a majority, I believe, of people between the age(s) of 40 and 60 in this country, I've had my run-ins with the law back in my younger days. There's a lot of laws, both then and now, with which I disagree... but, ultimately, the law attempts to do something that people used to attempt for themselves: To be fair, to everyone. It doesn't always work and, hopefully, when those laws that don't play fair against some people are discovered, they are reversed and/or invalidated. It's when people, either as individuals or groups, that try to inject their personal beliefs and biases into law that the fairness, often, gets lost.

Ultimately, I have a belief in the system. It's not a naive belief; I know there are always going to be inequities in the law based on prejudices. Certain minorities, when charged with certain criminal offenses, are going to be sentenced to longer prison sentences than their non-minority counterparts. Eventually, a large number (I wish I can say "the majority," but that's just not true) of those unfair decisions are reversed. All we can do is keep working - and work hard - on changing the mindset of people that allows for the non-parity in the first place. We've come a long way, just since the early 1960s - but the end is nowhere in sight. And, unfortunately, with every new election cycle, we're presented with a new groups against which those in power, to stay in power, say "it's okay!" to not treat fairly. Hopefully, one day, the "people in power" will stop being so manipulative.

That's one of the things I have against Barack Obama, actually. He's running a very subtle campaign of: "Elect me for change. Electing a white woman isn't enough of a change because it's still 'white.' But, electing a black man, now that's real change!"

And, to me, Obama is just about as "black" as OJ Simpson.

[polo_pro]

Originally Posted by gbrandwood

Here's a bit of that picture I was trying to find:



Whilst searching, I found another old favourite:

(Shaggy out of Scooby Do with his p133)

Think of just how much more successful either of these advertising campaigns/material would have been if they'd just put a polo mallet in the guy's hand, eh? Doesn't the guy on the i170 look like he's pursuing the ball!

[quade]

Originally Posted by polo

Doesn't the guy on the i170 look like he's pursuing the ball!

Honestly? To my non-gen1 riding eye it looks like he's about to eat concrete.

I'm sure it's all some expert riding technique, but his hips seem pretty far forward of the right wheel. Then again, maybe it's just the photograph being rotated an addition 20 degrees or so CCW that gives me this impression.

[polo_pro]

Originally Posted by quade

Honestly? To my non-gen1 riding eye it looks like he's about to eat concrete.

I'm sure it's all some expert riding technique, but his hips seem pretty far forward of the right wheel. Then again, maybe it's just the photograph being rotated an addition 20 degrees or so CCW that gives me this impression.

Come play polo with us. It'll all make sense to you (even if you stick to riding your Gen 2). You'll look at your segway in a whole new light (and have ALOT more fun on it knowing that you can do sooo much more).

ps - I still remember Hellphish showing me how to slide sideways on a sand path losing traction but not falling nor spinning up the wheels. That's probably the closest I've ever come to drifting, eh? Bet you didn't know you could do that on your segway! Hmmm...still haven't found a use for that in polo, though I did watch Woz do the same thing one time on a particularly wet field.