209 Thoughts to “Open Thread………………………………………..Tuesday, Feb. 8”

  1. Cargosquid
    February 7, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Even illegal immigration is being outsourced to India….they must be doing jobs that Mexicans just won’t do…. 😉

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Huge-spike-in-illegal-Indian-traffic-to-US-via-Mexico/articleshow/7440241.cms

  2. Lafayette
    February 7, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Moon/Emma/Juturna..point of order, point of order
    “I DEMAND TO BE SWORN IN!!!”

  3. marinm
    February 7, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which fought and largely won a battle for the soul of the Democratic party in the 1990s, is on the verge of bankruptcy and is closing its doors, its founder, Al From, confirmed Monday.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49041.html#ixzz1DL85dPjM

  4. Moon-howler
    February 8, 2011 at 12:02 am

    Its probably going to way of the centrist Republican.

    That’s too bad that everyone is so polarized.

  5. Starryflights
    February 8, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Ariz. lawmakers don’t vote on citizenship bill

    Goal is to force a court to rule that a child born in the U.S. is a citizen only if either parent is a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant

    By JACQUES BILLEAUD
    The Associated Press
    updated 2/7/2011 8:52:44 PM ET 2011-02-08T01:52:44

    PHOENIX — The Arizona lawmaker who proposed a challenge to automatic U.S. citizenship for children of illegal immigrants called off a scheduled vote on his measure Monday because he didn’t have enough votes to get it out of committee.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41462336/ns/us_news-life/

    Doesn’t have the votes – hahahaha – they’re afraid to hold a straight up-or-down vote. What a bunch of chickens!

  6. Emma
    February 8, 2011 at 5:26 am

    @Lafayette “Emma, how many more miles?”

  7. Cindy B
    February 8, 2011 at 7:30 am

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-nativist-laws-cost-communities-millions-inflame-racial-tension?ondntsrc=MBQ110270NWQ&newsletter=newsgen-20110202

  8. George S. Harris
    February 8, 2011 at 7:44 am

    @Cindy B
    Very interesting article. I wonder how much Prince William County has spent to enforce our resolution. And now, thanks to Delegate “Ready, Fire, Aim” Lingamfelter, the Commonwealth is trying to set up the same unmapped minefield for the rest of us to walk in. Thanks Scotty.

  9. George S. Harris
    February 8, 2011 at 7:50 am

    @Starryflights
    Hmmmm–I tend to agree that the 14th Amendment needs to be modified. We don’t grant citizenship to foreigners who are part of their country’s mission because they don’t come under our jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants technically don’t come under our jurisdiction–how is it that their children get automatic citizenship? Does anyone know the case law on this?

  10. Starryflights
    February 8, 2011 at 8:01 am

    There won’t be any case law anytime soon since Arizona lawmakers chickened out and won’t vote on it.

    Also, the House of Representatives, being Republican, could vote to amend the 14th today if they so choose. Nobody’s stopping them.

  11. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Actually, the 14th does not need AMENDING. It needs CLARIFICATION.

    Once that is done, then we can determine if we need amendments to achieve our goals, whatever those might be.

  12. Big Dog
    February 8, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Spent last week caring for my grandchildren and discovered on my arrival
    in NC, that my oldest, a ten year old girl, and all her pals had major cases of
    “Bieber Fever”.

    I haven’t seen anything like it since Beetlemania. Is it the hair?

    (Later saw Bieber skit on Jon Stewart and SNL – seems like a nice young guy)

  13. Moon-howler
    February 8, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Not to do a play on an already existing sound byte, but, what part of ‘born’ do you not understand, Cargo?

    It says what it says. Maybe the 2nd amendment needs ‘clarifying’ also.

    Are some of us suggesting that illegal immigrants are our latest diplomatics from Latin America?

    I thought diplomats had to be registered as diplomats. Then they don’t come under our jurisdiction. The rank and file tourist sure does come under our jurisdiction, as long as they are here. How about someone who has overstayed a visa? Do they stop coming under our jurisdiction the instant the visa runs out?

    Sorry you all, it says what it says. It will take an amendment to take the ‘born’ out of the 14th.

  14. Moon-howler
    February 8, 2011 at 9:45 am

    @Big Dog, she could go further and do a lot worse. My almost 5 year old one has a big crush on him also. That kid gets death threats and has been attacked during concerts. What is wrong with America????

  15. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 11:59 am

    We have legal jurisdiction over those in our country. We do not have political jurisdiction. If a tourist is arrested in this country, their embassy must be notified. Illegal immigrants have been arrested in this country and the Mexican authorities have raised a stink that the Mexican consulates were not notified.

    There is no such need to notify another country when LEGAL immigrants are arrested.

    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.

    Since historical and modern understandings of this amendment differ, then it should be clarified in a legal matter.

    Notice that I am not saying that my definition is right or yours, wrong. I am saying that we need a legal clarification so that laws can be written and enforced properly without states attempting to make their own laws.

    1. Moon-howler
      February 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      @Cargo, I don’t see why not. Legal residents of this country are still citizens of their own country just as much as an illegal resident is.

      I would say that the historical and modern understandings of the 2nd also differ. If they didn’t, why is it still being discussed?
      States shouldn’t be attempting to make their own laws regarding citizenship. It isn’t within their purview to define citizenship.

  16. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Here’s a question. Let’s assume, for the purposes of this comment, that HCR is constitutional. The question is, “Are the waivers granted by the administration legal or constitutional?”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259101/are-health-care-waivers-unconstitutional-philip-hamburger

    “The Department of Health and Human Services has granted 733 waivers from one of the statute’s key requirements. The recipients of the waivers include insurers such as Oxford Health Insurance, labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, and employers such as PepsiCo.”

    “More seriously, it raises questions about whether we live under a government of laws. Congress can pass statutes that apply to some businesses and not others, but once a law has passed — and therefore is binding — how can the executive branch relieve some Americans of their obligation to obey it?”

  17. Steve Thomas
    February 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    “It says what it says. Maybe the 2nd amendment needs ‘clarifying’ also.”

    Moon, the 2nd Ammendment has been clarified. SCOTUS ruled the R2K&BA is an individual right (not collective), and outright bans are unconstitutional. The court also ruled that the fed, states and municipalities have the right to “reasonable” restrictions on certain types of firearms, but not certain classes (ie. Virginia can ban a certain model of auto shotgun, but not all auto-shotguns) cannot be banned. They also upheld certain restrictions on specific individuals owning firearms (convicted felons, those under protective orders, etc.). I think Cargo is saying the court needs to rule on the “subject to the jusrisdiction thereof” portion of the 14th.

    1. Moon-howler
      February 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      @Steve,

      Outright bans might be unconstitutional but, the degree to which guns can be restricted is still very vital. I don’t disagree with you.

      We obviously don’t all agree but we all have to follow the law, like it or not. And years from now there will be 2nd amendment challenges in the courts.

      I don’t agree with the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ thereof issue. If we can put criminals from other countries away for life, or even execute them, they are pretty much subject to our jurisdiction. Perhaps the courts need to establish what they mean by jurisdiction, having nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Then there is that Indian issue…….

  18. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Hey Greece! We feel your pain. I wonder if we can get some Canadians on our southern border…..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/fortress-europe-greece-migrant-surge

  19. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Until overturned by a superior court, HCR has been declared unconstitutional.
    President Obama’s administration is ignoring that fact and continuing to implement it.
    Apparently court decisions are for OTHER people.
    This is my shocked face.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=178879

  20. marinm
    February 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    @Cargo, the administration would NEVER be in contempt of a judicial ruling. Never. EVER.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703437304576120863247164104.html

    Oh, well.. Maybe just this one time… But, it’s for the greater good!

  21. marinm
    February 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    I can’t draw but it would be funny to see a political cartoon of Obama’s head on George Wallace’s body as Scalia tells him to step aside and follow the Constitution. I’d buy that for a dollar!!

    1. Moon-howler
      February 8, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      Considering George Wallace was in a wheel chair the last part of his life, due to an assassin’s bullet, perhaps not so funny.

  22. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @Moon-howler
    Actually, if the person convicted is a a “furriner” we have to contact their embassy and may be restricted in the penalties we can use. Their country can file suit to affect their cases.

    As for the 2nd, that’s why “shall not be infringed” is so wonderful. If you take it as written, no challenges are necessary. Its only when you try to bypass the constitutional restrictions that things get sticky.

    1. Moon-howler
      February 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      I guess that is why there have been court cases and challenges for decades. Everyone doesn’t see it like that.

      That doesn’t explain why a legal resident who is a citizen of another country doesnt fall under the same set of contact rules.

  23. George S. Harris
    February 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    @Starryflights
    Oh, there really is plenty of case law on the 14th Amendment, even a bunch on Section 1, the section is question. But you may be right when it comes to states trying to establish their right to say whether a person is a citizen or not–that may be a 10th Amendment issue as I see it.

  24. marinm
    February 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Interesting article on CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/07/us.secure.communities/index.html?hpt=T2#

    Washington (CNN) — The rape of a child may be linked to a gap in a program intended to remove criminal aliens from the country.

  25. Juturna
    February 8, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    A larger issue could be jurisdiction – the reason we have so many law enforcement agencies is to control intelligence.

  26. Moon-howler
    February 8, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Birth citizenship has stood the test of time since 1865. I don’t see anyone saying ‘ooops I made a mistake.’ 145 years is a long time.

  27. BoyThreeOne
    February 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    This is a great article:
    http://www.truth-out.org/can-we-please-stop-blaming-immigrants67539

    Also, I’ve recently received several e-mails asking me to pledge, in one way or another, to stop using the term “illegal” in reference to any human being. It is termed the “i” word. I’ve committed to not using it.

  28. Emma
    February 8, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    I don’t think you can slide dental floss between the Bush and Obama war policies. The House is getting ready to vote tonight on extending three of the most contentious aspects of the Patriot Act.

    One of the provisions authorizes the FBI to continue using roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access “any tangible items,” such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third is a “lone wolf” provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that allows for surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

    Civil liberties advocates have contended that the Patriot Act gives the government too much latitude in conducting surveillance activities, intruding into the lives of private citizens. Proponents of the law argue that it is essential to national security in an era of evolving terrorist threats.

    Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last week wrote a letter to congressional leaders in which they urged for reauthorization of the Patriot Act’s three provisions through 2013.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/house-to-take-up-patriot-act-e.html

    Change we can believe in.

  29. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    @BoyThreeOne
    I don’t have to blame them for anything other than being here illegally. THAT right there is enough. That is what makes their presence here illegal, therefore they are called illegal aliens. And being here illegally is a crime all in itself. They should all go home and come back through the proper channels.

  30. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    @Emma
    But…but… the URGENT need for CHANGE! The HOPE that things would CHANGE! We were all going to be in a police state under GWB! Say it isn’t so!

    Why would the DHS waste time watching someone not connected to a terrorist? And if there is a warrant in the first place, then a court will have approved the process.

  31. TWINAD
    February 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Great piece BoyThreeOn…it supports everything I’ve witnessed up close about “illegal” immigrants.

  32. Moon-howler
    February 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    Cargo, don’t you think if they could enter the country legally, they would?

  33. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Why should they go through the slog when they don’t have to? Deportation is rare. They have support networks including entire sanctuary cities, their children are treated as citizens, they have job networks, they don’t need to lose their home country’s (usually Mexican) citizenship or identity.

    Yes, we need to reform our immigration laws, but that is not an excuse for them to enter illegally.

    1. Moon-howler
      February 8, 2011 at 9:23 pm

      @CArgo, That really isn’t how it works. In our area, Mexicans are the minority.

      It is nearly impossible for people from Latin American countries to enter legally. It is difficult enough for them to come for a visit. It is close to impossible now to get a status adjustment.

  34. Emma
    February 8, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    @Cargosquid Would that be the same DHS that missed all the cues on the Fort Hood shooter? Because “we can’t watch needles in a haystack”?

    Just wondering.

  35. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    DHS? Heck, THE ARMY gave him a pass. If I had said an slightly off-color joke, I’d get reprimanded in the Navy. HE CORRESPONDED WITH THE FREAKING ENEMY! And they ignored it. He made weird religious comments about jihad and Islam’s superiority. If I had even thought about supporting my faith over another’s, I’d get reprimanded.

    I wonder what the difference between me ‘n him were? Other than service and rank? Hmmm, let me think…….

  36. Emma
    February 8, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    @Cargosquid The difference between you and him is that they would have been watching and listening to you.

  37. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    @Emma
    The House failed to pass it.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/142871-gop-defections-lead-to-house-failure-to-extend-patriot-act-surveillance

    The Democrats are ecstatic. Some of the GOP are too. So, apparently what was good enough under the Democratic House isn’t good for the GOP house….

    Personally, I think that they should not pass it and then, if they need additional authorization or powers, debate individual bills for them. The Patriot Act needs reform. The biggest danger to American freedoms is always an over-reaching government.

  38. Emma
    February 8, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    @Cargosquid Amen

  39. marinm
    February 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    I don’t get it. Did Congress finally grow a set?? There has to be something wrong — it’s a trap!!

  40. Cargosquid
    February 8, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Congress didn’t grow a set. The Democrats voted against it because the GOP is going to be in power in Congress over the next few years. And the usual suspects in the GOP went along. Now if the Democrats had won, this would have sailed through without a mention.

  41. Big Dog
    February 9, 2011 at 7:41 am

    The blog Not Larry Sabato has an interesting thread up with info/chart
    that states nearly 50% of PWC houses are still underwater – the writer
    blames Corey and the “Rule of Law” (I think there were other reasons,
    mainly the Great Recession that saw areas where
    values shot up in a real estate bubble, fall even quicker). Anyway,
    you may to check out NLS today.

  42. Need to Know
    February 9, 2011 at 8:44 am

    @Big Dog

    I saw that article. The entire nation suffered in the bursting of the real estate bubble. Prince William County was hit especially hard mainly because of massive overdevelopment in the residential housing market. The Board of County Supervisors has been bought and paid for by the developers for decades, and Corey Stewart has turned out to be the worst of them all. Despite history, and facts such as the story cited here (PWC ranks 26th in the entire nation for home mortgages being under water) the BOCS continues its course of overdevelopment and setting us up for another crash.

    What was Corey saying about the economic health of Prince William County?

  43. marinm
    February 9, 2011 at 9:31 am

    It’s very telling when as a resident of PWC for anything outside of eating establishments I have to travel to Stafford or FFX to buy stuff. Sure we have a mall or two and some speciality stores but our neighbors are beating us down on variety and more upscale offerings.

    Ask people if they can “work” in PWC and all you hear about is trying to find work in FFX…

    It’s almost depressing. Too much residential and not enough business.

  44. Big Dog
    February 9, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Will be interesting to see in a few years if someone who bought a PWC area
    house in 2000 and sells it in 2015 will experince the same long term value
    increase that someone who purchased in 1985 and sold in 2000. We had
    an abnormal steep climb followed by a steep fall, but over a fifteen year
    period will it all even out?

  45. Slowpoke Rodriguez
    February 9, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Bye Bye, Jim Webb!

  46. Cindy B
    February 9, 2011 at 11:46 am

    City of Manassas Public Utililities featured on Fox 5 — “Montgomery County Ponders Municipal Power…Manassas Has It”
    http://www.manassascity.org/index.aspx?NID=1038

  47. Big Dog
    February 9, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Thanks Cindy,

    Great to see some positive media coverage about the City of Manassas!

    Kudos for the Utility Department.

  48. Big Dog
    February 9, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Webb has stated he will NOT run in 2012. Darn.

    I have been proud to have him as one of Virginia’s U.S. Senators.

  49. Big Dog
    February 9, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    http://roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/276458

  50. Cindy B
    February 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Great to see the City using more video on their website!

    I thank Sen. Webb for his public service.

Comments are closed.