Potential Presidential Conflicts of Interest.

[E_T]

Don't forget to write you Senator back with a gigantic "I told you so"....

[Rusty Edge]

Don't forget to write you Senator back with a gigantic "I told you so"....

Uhh....  I may have already replied to his reply-

"Thanks, Senator Johnson,

for clarifying your thoughts on this and taking the time to reply to me. I don't object to President actually governing, providing it stays within The Constitution, I just don't think Sessions will reign him inside the lines.

   Speaking of which, I think it's time that Congress re-asserted it's power with regard to declarations of war. The War Powers Act was a Cold War adaptation. Since the Cold War is over and President [Sleezebag] wants to turn the page on Russian relations, since communications have been transformed so that you and your colleagues can be reached almost anytime and any place, I don't see the imperative for the President to be able to start a war on his own.

With the President making remarks about invading Mexico, confiscating Middle Eastern oil, and resuming the nuclear arms race, I think it would be a really good idea to re-assert that Constitutional authority now, before any of those things happen. For that matter, Congressional power of the purse and work on balanced budgets is meaningless if you can't control which wars we are in. If a war is justified, it deserves the backing of Congress, and if a war can't muster that kind of support, we aren't ready to be involved.

Thank you for your time"

[E_T]

DOH!!

[Rusty Edge]

I'm rapidly becoming jaded, or at least exasperated with the volume and audacity of this administration's ethical lapses. Well, maybe sometimes it's disregard or contempt rather than a lapse.

Events of this weekend have me dredging up this thread. Kushner's sister is in charge of his "blind" trust, by the way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/kushner-china-visa-eb-5.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[Buster's Uncle]

Why the nets are not brim-full of running lists of laws brazenly violated 20 January-on by a certain real estate huckster and his cronies, I don't know.  There were solid grounds to impeach before Groundhog's Day.

[Geo]

Looks like 'it' pays to be American... literally!

Just wondering, but do people who sign up through this program have to say the Oath? Or don't they get American nationality this way?

[Rusty Edge]

Looks like 'it' pays to be American... literally!

Just wondering, but do people who sign up through this program have to say the Oath? Or don't they get American nationality this way?

Citizenship is another step. There's a test ( civics mostly ) that most native born Americans couldn't pass, the oath, and I forget what kind of criminal record checks and other requirements. 

Many of our illegal immigrants are simply people who came here legally as tourists, students, guest workers, or on business and overstayed their permission.

[Geo]

What's the usual procedure when some official (police officer or whatnot) bumps into such people? Instant incarcenation and deportation, or simply registering? Or is this handled on the state level, not the federal?

[Spacy]

Most police are state level or lower (county, city).  They have no requirement to ask the question of citizenship, which is part of the issue we have. 

The proper procedure is that if a local police question someone for something or other (perhaps as a witness) and discover that they are illegal, they are supposed to report to the federal immigration police.  Immigration is supposed to take custody of the person and place them into a detention center (which can be anywhere in the US, and although they try to find somewhere close to the persons home, it is usually done on a first open bed policy which often sends people hundreds or even thousands of miles from their home).  Then, the person is assigned a court to have their case heard in (which is first opening basis, so again quite often hundreds or thousands of miles away).  Now the person needs an attorney - but where, at their home, where their family and money are, at the location they are detained at, or at the location of the courthouse?  Often they need one in each - which as you can immagine gets expensive fast.  The court then makes a ruling - and usually it is to deport the person as they are not fleeing persecution, but instead looking residing for economic reasons.  Very rarely does the court say the person can stay, because they wouldn't have been detained if they were legal residents to begin with (although, I suppose, very rarely that does happen, but I have never heard of it and it does get quite a bit of news coverage as it is one of those hot topic political divides here in the US).  If the person is deported, it depends on where they are being sent - but typically they are placed on a charter plane with a 1 way ticket and a notice sent to the country's embassy that the person is being sent home.  Sometimes, they are just dropped off at the embassy if there are issues with flights to that person't country (i.e. Iran) or to a close by embassy or country (i.e. China embassy for a North Korean national). 

The current issues with illegal immigration go back almost 80 years now, when we did some crazy laws to allow migrant workers back in the great depression back in the late 1930's, and then changed the laws in the 1950's and 60's to basically get rid of the program but without providing economic alternatives for both the workers and the employers who relied upon them, and then even worse in the Clinton and Obama era's when there was little/no enforcement of the laws that were in place (which are horribly broken).  So, we now have a population of about 325 million, 11 million (or about 3.4%) of which are in the country illegally.  That means that on average, pull 30 random people into a room, one of them will be an illegal resident.

[Spacy]

Conservative opinion #1 on immigration

People need to obey the law.  If you cannot do the time, don't do the crime.  Doesn't matter that the law isn't perfect, just that it is.  By entering the country illegally (or, overstaying an expired visa, which I believe is more common), they are breaking the law and that is the end of the issue. 

Conservative opinion #2 on immigration

Climate change is happening (although, big business and humans may be partially at fault, that isn't relevant).

Climate change is causing famine - look at Syria as an example: 2008 population of about 20 million, 2-3 million of which are refugees fleeing Iraq and Iran.  2006 start of drought in Syria, and per NASA is directly caused by climate change.  2010 drought is ending, but there are estimated to be 2 million refugees from Syrian rural areas to urban areas due to devastated agriculture (75% farms and 85% livestock have failed by the end), and about 1/4 million fled the country.  So in a country of 20 million, 4-5 million people are considered refugees - which led to all sorts of political unrest that started the civil war in 2011. 

Refugees need resources (food, shelter, medicine, etc.) that they have no means of providing for themselves, else they wouldn't be refugees.  These cost money and are a drain.

The problem of climate change, famine, and refugees will only get worse.  By 2040 following current trends most urban areas will be having issues with rising oceans, and the US has a lot of infrastructure and urban areas that will be impacted.  On extreme projections (meaning not likely to happen, but cool to at least look at) about 15% of the US that is land now would be underwater, including most of the Mississippi valley and large parts of southern states. 

Refugees are not immigrants.   Refugees by definition don't want to immigrate, they are forced to do so.  Most would return to their homeland once the causes of their forced relocation are no longer a factor (i.e. the war is over, the famine has ended, etc.).  So, they come, they drain resources, then they go home.  Immigrants, however, are different.  They are seeking a new home and will do what they can to work and make it a better place.  Immagine you inviting your 3rd cousin 4 times removed to sleep in your guest room while they recover from their house burning down.  Now imagine 10 years later they are still there, eating your food, not paying any rent, and asking for an allowance so they can get some spending money - contributing nothing and taking everything they can. 

As climate gets worse, and more and more places have unrest and forced migrations, these displaced will come looking to us for refuge - but who must we take care of first, our own or strangers?  Let your kids suffer so that some stranger doesn't? 

This is the perspective of the majority of conservatives in the area I live (and, from what I have seen and heard, fairly common in other areas as well). 

Conservative opinion #3 on immigration

Them heathens be heathens.  They can go to their fellow heathens and leave us good, god fearin' folks alone.  (I would like to say that this isn't too common, but I fear that it is rather more common than uncommon.  It is just kept quiet as it isn't politically correct to say such words and have such thoughts and it will get the people ostracized).


Liberal attitude #1

They are people.  All people are inherently good.  We need to be good.  We should welcome them with open arms; give them hugs, kisses, cookies and hopefully the vote so they can vote for me, and call it a day. 

LIberal attitude #2

I am unaware of any other attitude.  Do good and hope for good karma back is really the only thing I have ever heard.

[Rusty Edge]

I have one senator from each party. The Democrat is partisan and protectionist, and she was also asleep on watch with regard to the Veteran's Administration scandal. Normally somebody I'd oppose, but a sure impeachment and opposition vote to the ruling GOP. She's tolerable in the big picture.


My GOP Senator, who got re-elected with more votes the same time [Sleezebag] got elected, has been mysteriously deferential to [Sleezebag]. He was part of the delegation which spent Independence Day in Moscow, and came back calling for sanctions to be lifted because they weren't working. He's the one I've shared my correspondence with here.  Lately I've been wondering if he was the beneficiary of Russian money funneled through the NRA, that developing scandal has several connections to Wisconsin.


Here's my e-mail to him today-

Yesterday really reminds me of August 8th, 1974, when I knew in my heart that the worst was true about the president.
It was another one of those defining days in America. You must find it particularly liberating, because now you get to choose a side and forget the apologies and excuses. You don't have to worry any more about what neutrals will think of you, because they are rapidly transforming into a negligible minority. Anything you say or do now can't embarrass him beyond what he has done to himself. I really think it's time for everybody to get on the right side of history.

I'll be watching to see what you actually do now, rather than what you say, to see who you really are.

Farewell,
Xxxxx


I also had a line in there about [Sleezebag] having no personal honor left, and was unworthy of the sacrifice of anyone else's honor.



I sent pretty much the same message to my Congressman, who has recently said that he was all for [Sleezebag], except for the trade wars. I doubt they'll find any courage to lead, and that this will be my last effort to work with them.

[E_T]

It's a sad state of affairs when things like this get swept under the rug.  Well, payback is coming for some of them, although the replacements might even be worse...