The President has failed us

[X -Man-]

discordian wrote:

shit, i forgot LOL LOL LOL

That you were'nt one of the "smart people"?

I could have told you that.

[HellonHee1s-1]

PUpPeT bOy wrote:

This Is
MS-13
Representin
And Presentin Da Homies Of
"MS-13" We Riding We
Slick And We Sliding and Killin Bitches And Laughin At 18 St Gang
Because They Cant Bang Like US
cuz We true ese's
because so many days go by and we never drop and we wont stop
we are true gangstas
and fuck dem wangstas
like G3ttoFabulou5
He Don't Rep Nothing He A Hater And Like every debater
he Mad because All He Can say Is That
Hes Gay And All Day He Chokes on Dicks Because Thats all he is
Because He Filled With Jokes
And Hes right he is a Joke
"MS-13"
Don't Put Up With That We Are Our Own Surenos We Kill
Northenos And Any Bitch Who Disses
and Acts Like A Snitch
Will end Up Ina hospital Bed and
be Dead
And If You Sure
You Wanna Mess With
"MS-13
Godbless Your Soul
Because In The End You Will Be Full Of Worries And Sorries Of Going Through Hell

If You're Going Through Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Most gang members I know are SISSIE's

[Jaxxon]

2) Applicants must notify their respective employers that they have applied to remain and work in the U.S.A. legally. Employers of illegals are granted a one time only pass on penalty or fine for employing illegal workers and will cooperate with government officials in any electronic request on their employee(s).

Applicants will be entered into a separate E-Verify database which is mandatory for all employers to use to authenticate worker status.
Applicants will undergo fingerprinting identification which data will be entered into a National crime database for access by law enforcement.

Okay, need a minute to look this part over.

Imagine discussing immigration reform on the Immigration reform forum.

Will the blasphemy never end?

[positronium]

---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! He's a negative idot, I mean ion.

You're Posit-ively an idiot. Stop being so negative and let me have an electron. Then I can stop being an ion. LOL

[HellonHee1s-1]

NuRidersoftheePurpleSage wrote:

<quoted text>
EL PASO
http://youtu.be/R-y3DB0wLh4
MARTY ROBBINS
Song l first heard nearly 50 years ago,always loved it.Spent the last year collecting photos and bits of film, finally put them all together to make this video
Canzone l sentito quasi 50 anni fa, sempre amato. Trascorso circa un anno la raccolta di foto e pezzi di pellicola, infine metterli tutti insieme per rendere questo video.

Si Senor =)

El Paso
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Snake Eyes]

Immigration plan: How 1986 amnesty compares to Senate proposal

A bipartisan group of senators put forward a plan Monday to give many of the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This blueprint has sparked comparisons to a 1986 law which gave amnesty to 2.7 million people.

There are some major differences, however. The Senate proposal is much tougher in several aspects than the law signed by President Ronald Reagan.

How the two programs would be similar

Immigrants must not have a criminal background

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants could not qualify for temporary or permanent residence if they had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors in the U.S.

Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals with "a serious criminal background" or who "pose a threat to our national security" will not be eligible and may be deported.
Immigrants must have an understanding of English and civics

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants needed to meet "minimum requirements for an understanding of English and a knowledge of American history and government" or show they were studying those subjects. Those 65 and older were exempted.

Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals would need to "learn English and civics" before they were eligible for permanent residency, but not for a probationary status.

Immigrants must show a history of employment

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants were not eligible if they could not show a history of employment or otherwise looked like they might be likely to end up on public assistance.

Senate proposal: The blueprints states that individuals will need to "demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment" to be eligible.

There is a separate process for agricultural workers

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants who had worked at least 90 days in seasonal agriculture in the previous year were allowed to apply in a separate program. Approximately 1.1 million people qualified under this provision.

Senate proposal: The blueprint says agricultural workers will be "treated differently" and handled through a "different process" to become citizens because of the role they play in providing food for Americans. It does not give details.

How the 1986 law was tougher

Immigrants were required to have lived continuously in the U.S.

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants had to have lived continuously in the U.S. since before Jan. 1, 1982, though brief trips out of the country were excused. Approximately 1.6 million people qualified under this provision.

Senate proposal: The blueprint does not list any requirements for having lived continuously in the United States or having moved here before a certain date.

There was no separate process for people brought as children

1986 law: Nothing in the 1986 law differentiated between adults and children who were undocumented immigrants.

Senate proposal: The blueprint states that " individuals who entered the United States as minor children" would "not face the same requirements" because they "did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws."

Immigrants were not eligible for federal benefits for five years

1986 law: Undocumented immigrants were ineligible for "federal financial assistance" including Medicaid (with certain exceptions) and food stamps for five years after becoming permanent residents, with exceptions for the elderly, blind and disabled.

Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals will be barred from "accessing federal public benefits" while they are on a probationary legal status, but there are no restrictions listed after that.

How the Senate proposal is tougher

Immigrants would be required to pay back taxes and fines

1986 law: The 1986 law did not require undocumented immigrants pay any fines or back taxes to be eligible.

Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/politics-nation...

[positronium]

---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't preaching. YOU were.
"Poopchute?" What are you, about 10 years old tonight? But you see this is what I mean by your rudeness. People like you expect politeness (like the hypocrites you are), and then you preach about it to others.
So how about YOU "practice what you preach," or better yet, quit preaching.

It's exceedingly easy for a 10 year old to converse with a baby. You will see when you turn 10. JEJEJEJE.

[-Dont Panic-]

More BOOM!

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

[---Wild Irish Rose---]

HellonHee1s-1 wrote:

<quoted text>
#133223
Ga Girl 56 wrote:
<quoted text>Now why would Rose get banned from Topix?
How horrible.
I can't believe that since just in my case she only threatened me and my daughters two or three times.
Remember the last one was "I'm going to get you and your kids, too.".
I don't believe if Rose hunted someone down and shot them Topix would do a thing.
Anyway if she is somewhere with the other Pats they are giving her what she needs, lots of attention and that's the really sad thing about Rose. Can only stay a few minutes. Been cooking all day. Making home made cream of broccoli soup for dinner tonight and for after "his" surgery tomorrow. Hopefully they will get all the tumor this time. My youngest has said she would do hospital duty for me so I making her & hers lasagna to take home after they get in tomorrow night. Late surgery at 4 then the wake up time. They may not get in till 8p so thought I better do something so she didn't have to cook. Anyway "his" house smells like heaven. Hope everyone is well today.
Rose's most famous threat, "i'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too."

That woman is a raving lunatic.

I NEVER made any such threats to her, and she's been lying about this sort of thing for years.

Naturally, you would believe the lies of an insane fool like that.

Now, go ask her for the PROOF in a post from me of those threats. They don't exist, because I never posted any thing of the kind.

Beat it, geek and don't even try your idiotic games on me. You'll lose.

[HellonHee1s-1]

Jason Aldean, Luke Bryan & Eric Church - "Only Way I Know"
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

"These Are My People"
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Jaxxon]

Jaxxon wrote:

2) Applicants must notify their respective employers that they have applied to remain and work in the U.S.A. legally. Employers of illegals are granted a one time only pass on penalty or fine for employing illegal workers and will cooperate with government officials in any electronic request on their employee(s).
Applicants will be entered into a separate E-Verify database which is mandatory for all employers to use to authenticate worker status.
Applicants will undergo fingerprinting identification which data will be entered into a National crime database for access by law enforcement.
Okay, need a minute to look this part over.
Imagine discussing immigration reform on the Immigration reform forum.
Will the blasphemy never end?

So, people that employ illegals get one shot at making it right and must provide any information the governemnt requests concerning their undocumented workers.

Undocumented workers will be entered into a unique data base that will thereafter be used to verify legal guest worker status and fingerprints will be made available to law enforcement.

Am I getting this right?

[NTRPRNR1]

Snake Eyes wrote:

Immigration plan: How 1986 amnesty compares to Senate proposal
A bipartisan group of senators put forward a plan Monday to give many of the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This blueprint has sparked comparisons to a 1986 law which gave amnesty to 2.7 million people.
There are some major differences, however. The Senate proposal is much tougher in several aspects than the law signed by President Ronald Reagan.
How the two programs would be similar
Immigrants must not have a criminal background
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants could not qualify for temporary or permanent residence if they had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors in the U.S.
Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals with "a serious criminal background" or who "pose a threat to our national security" will not be eligible and may be deported.
Immigrants must have an understanding of English and civics
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants needed to meet "minimum requirements for an understanding of English and a knowledge of American history and government" or show they were studying those subjects. Those 65 and older were exempted.
Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals would need to "learn English and civics" before they were eligible for permanent residency, but not for a probationary status.
Immigrants must show a history of employment
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants were not eligible if they could not show a history of employment or otherwise looked like they might be likely to end up on public assistance.
Senate proposal: The blueprints states that individuals will need to "demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment" to be eligible.
There is a separate process for agricultural workers
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants who had worked at least 90 days in seasonal agriculture in the previous year were allowed to apply in a separate program. Approximately 1.1 million people qualified under this provision.
Senate proposal: The blueprint says agricultural workers will be "treated differently" and handled through a "different process" to become citizens because of the role they play in providing food for Americans. It does not give details.
How the 1986 law was tougher
Immigrants were required to have lived continuously in the U.S.
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants had to have lived continuously in the U.S. since before Jan. 1, 1982, though brief trips out of the country were excused. Approximately 1.6 million people qualified under this provision.
Senate proposal: The blueprint does not list any requirements for having lived continuously in the United States or having moved here before a certain date.
There was no separate process for people brought as children
1986 law: Nothing in the 1986 law differentiated between adults and children who were undocumented immigrants.
Senate proposal: The blueprint states that " individuals who entered the United States as minor children" would "not face the same requirements" because they "did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws."
Immigrants were not eligible for federal benefits for five years
1986 law: Undocumented immigrants were ineligible for "federal financial assistance" including Medicaid (with certain exceptions) and food stamps for five years after becoming permanent residents, with exceptions for the elderly, blind and disabled.
Senate proposal: The blueprint states that individuals will be barred from "accessing federal public benefits" while they are on a probationary legal status, but there are no restrictions listed after that.
....
Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/politics-nation...

I would really like your thoughts on the proposal put up earlier. It may be missing again, but we'll be getting to it again sometime tomorrow.

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:

<quoted text>
That woman is a raving lunatic.
I NEVER made any such threats to her, and she's been lying about this sort of thing for years.
Naturally, you would believe the lies of an insane fool like that.
Now, go ask her for the PROOF in a post from me of those threats. They don't exist, because I never posted any thing of the kind.
Beat it, geek and don't even try your idiotic games on me. You'll lose.

Are you "Rose" or "Wild Irish Rose"? maybe you misunderstood?

[NTRPRNR1]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
So, people that employ illegals get one shot at making it right and must provide any information the governemnt requests concerning their undocumented workers.
Undocumented workers will be entered into a unique data base that will thereafter be used to verify legal guest worker status and fingerprints will be made available to law enforcement.
Am I getting this right?

Perfectly.

[HellonHee1s-1]

-Dont Panic- wrote:

More BOOM!
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Shake Ya Tailfeather
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[NTRPRNR1]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, so there is a one time chance to qualify for temporary guest worker status for those who have been here long enough and have been contributing by paying taxes.
Have I got that part right?

They must demonstrate that they have resided and worked continuously for say 5 years. A lot of folks pushed for 10, but I don't think we could get that. Five seems to be the most reasonable number for several reasons, one of which is that their children born in recent years are not fully Americanized. Little ones are still "parentized" and would suffer no major culture shock.

[Jaxxon]

3) Along the way, employers can access the applicant E-Verify database to check an employee's status: Application pending, Application rejected, Application Approved. At any point in the process that an employer discovers an employee has been rejected for acceptance, the employee must be promptly terminated. Failure to do so will subject that employer to fines and penalties and will prohibit the employer from using additional temporary guest workers going forward.

Part 3 seems pretty staright forward, but let's all take a minute consider the implications and then discuss it.

Whatta ya say?

[-Dont Panic-]

HellonHee1s-1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Shake Ya Tailfeather
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

In your air force ones....https://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=BfzsMQGqrt0

[-Dont Panic-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

[---Wild Irish Rose---]

HellonHee1s-1 wrote:

<quoted text>
#133223
Ga Girl 56 wrote:
<quoted text>Now why would Rose get banned from Topix?
How horrible.
I can't believe that since just in my case she only threatened me and my daughters two or three times.
Remember the last one was "I'm going to get you and your kids, too.".
I don't believe if Rose hunted someone down and shot them Topix would do a thing.
Anyway if she is somewhere with the other Pats they are giving her what she needs, lots of attention and that's the really sad thing about Rose. Can only stay a few minutes. Been cooking all day. Making home made cream of broccoli soup for dinner tonight and for after "his" surgery tomorrow. Hopefully they will get all the tumor this time. My youngest has said she would do hospital duty for me so I making her & hers lasagna to take home after they get in tomorrow night. Late surgery at 4 then the wake up time. They may not get in till 8p so thought I better do something so she didn't have to cook. Anyway "his" house smells like heaven. Hope everyone is well today.
Rose's most famous threat, "i'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too."

You forgot the link, b*tch.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/immigration/T...