Kate's law just passed the House of Rep.

1. 80

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   It is up to the Senate to make it law. Who is against this common sense law and why?
   I am not interested in politics. This is a common sense law that protects Americans.
   Who is against it? What is the justification for blocking this law?
   Most Americans when polled agree with this law.
   Most democrats are against it though they don't seem to understand this law and the limited application.
   It is not anti immigrants. It is anti undocumented immigrants that comits felony.
   Here is one issue that seem to divide the left and the right. Why?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Jack ,   Is the law P.C. ?
      
      That , is the quintessential pass or fail reasoning  of the left , they will look around themselves  face to face until someone like Bernie Sanders tells them yes or no .Thumbs up or down   The left seems incapable of independent  deliberation .

      replyreport
      1. 80

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I was told that the House vote was only for show. Most people in DC believe this bill will never be voted on by the Senate. If that is the case, I want to know which Senator oppose this bill. I want them voted out the next time they are up for reelection. This is not politics for me. If a republican senator is against this bill, I am for voting that senator out also.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            In something like this law I am reminded how each of us is "distanced " from legislative representation ,    Yes , if conservatives vote against it or any such legislation , we MUST oust them from office !  For instance , I live in Vermont with NO  republican senate . Dems only .
            
            I can still write other House and Senate offices however .

            replyreport
   2. 71

      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't see anything in the bill about undocumented immigrants that commit felonies, just thst the penalty should be increased for those attempting to re-enter. Am I missing something?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Here is the text of part of the bill -
         "To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being removed."
         
         The point being, this bill is to increase the penalty of mandatory 5 years imprison for aliens who had been deported due to criminal activities...
         It is specifically targeting those that were deported due to felony crimes and then renter our country and gets arrested again.
         So, in the case of Kate Steinle's assailant, if this law was in place, instead of being deported 5 times..
         after he was arrested the 2nd time, he would be in jail and not be able to comit the crime...
         I hope this is clear.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            AshtonFireflyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hmmm, I'm just not seeing anything about deportation due to criminal activiy. I mean obviously this would apply to them as well. Anyway I think it's a useful bill, either way.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               How about this version of the bill - ( S.45)
               https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … ll/45/text

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  AshtonFireflyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Well now I'm really confused because the former link said there was only one version of it. Eh maybe I'm just not literate in bills, I just see nothing about felonies. Regardless, it would still resolve the issue, that just wasn't the wording. The second one actually shows the earliest date of sending to the senate, while the first one shows a latter date. Is the first link the most recent?

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, the way it works with any bill is that the House pass a bill, then the Senate vote on it's version and if both passes, they go into reconciliation to come out with a final version then it goes to the President for signing.
                     That is how a bill becomes law of the land.
                     It is a complicated process with many procedure rules which only they understand...
                     That is why passing laws such as the repeal and replace of the ACA takes so long to even get started...

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        AshtonFireflyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Ahaaaaa, ok that makes sense.

                        replyreport
2. 80

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   Here is text of law -
   https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … l/361/text

   replyreport
3. 89

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   How much local government can the US tolerate? Not much, it seems. Freedom lovin' reps want to make sure no city can have autonomy.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see this as a freedom issue. I am all for limited government and States rights...
      This law is a security issue and a safety issue. We cannot have sactuary cities that protect criminals just because they are also undocumented immigrants.
      This law is to protect US citizens from being harmed by illegal foreigners who comits felonies, Under current situations, it is like a revolving door. They comit crime, gets arrested, gets deported and they are back again comitiing more crimes...
      I have served on a grand jury in NYC. 90 percent of cases I heard was of the same type. illegal aliens committing repeated crimes and reentering after deportation. This insanity must stop.
      Kate's law is one step in the right direction. Building the wall and stop funding sanctuary cities are next.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         As long as it is about security, governments should get a free pass. We all know how dangerous fruit pickers are.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "We all know how dangerous fruit pickers are."
            
            And of course 10 million fruit pickers, none of whom have any regard for the law or care if they violate it or not, are not dangerous.  Because some of them pick fruit and you wish to characterize all 10 million as the same.
            
            Such comments can only come from those desperately trying to divert attention while they promote their fantasy world without regard to fact, truth or reality.

            replyreport
         2. 80

            jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What are you talking about. Your sarcasm is telling. If you were Kate's father, would you feel the same?
            We are not talking about grape pickers...As long as they don't comit felonies they have nothing to worry about. This law is to address a specific problem. We have a loophole in the current system. Because we don't have a secure border, people can come and go as they please. Once a wall is built, this law will be less necessary. In the meantime, I want these people locked up.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And socially , culturally irresponsible libs will tolerate anything on the road to socialism and open  borders , ALL to increase the liberal voter lists .

      replyreport
      1. 80

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I am actually encouraged by the lack of resposes here on this forum.
         It seems no one on the left has any good reason to defeat this bill...
         I hope those Senators wise up. They are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of common sense, if they fail to pass this bill.

         replyreport
4. 89

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   This is the way illegal immigration works:
   
   An investor wants to make some money
   He/she is unwilling to pay a wage that will give anyone a decent life
   But people from desperately poor countries will risk their lives to illegally cross borders to get those jobs
   Because they are illegal they are easily exploited (perfect for the investor)
   The local population blame the immigrants for any issue that is upsetting them
   There is a moral panic at the sight of unfamiliar food
   A politician senses an opportunity, rides the moral panic into office
   A few illegals are expelled
   The remainder are even more exploitable (what more could the investor ask for?)

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Will, we all know hiw it works and some of us wants to stop this both for our citizens and for the illegal immigrants. We should only have 1 class of citizens not an underclass that can be exploited. Outside of building a wall and tighten the border process and visa, what do you suggest?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Pay wages that Americans want to work for.
         
         Work on your nation's moral compass. Economies should serve people, not the other way round.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Work on your nation's moral compass."
            
            You mean pay wages that forces bankruptcy?  That kind of "moral compass"?
            
            It's real easy to sit back in the easy chair and make moral judgements about other people without having a clue, or care, about what's actually happening, isn't it?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If a company cannot make a profit by paying decent wages, let it go bankrupt. It will focus the minds of employers. And the country as a whole. Why run the economy in a way that promotes misery?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "Decent" as defined by you, without regard to business potentials or anything else but pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams..  And this you call "moral"...Nice! 
                  
                  Saw a news report today, from St Louis, I think.  Their minimum wage went up to $10, but it didn't work (never does, does it?) and as of Jan. 1 it's going back down some.  An interview with some lady that had benefited, and she was asked what would happen to her personally now when her wage drops.
                  
                  Her reply: "Things will get very, very tough again".  Nothing about forcing her into a new line of work, nothing about working a second job, nothing about having to get training to earn more.  Just that things will get tough, meaning more govt. freebies. 
                  
                  Promotes misery?  I think not, in the vast majority of cases.  Promotes charity and an entitlement philosophy where the world owes a living to anyone living? Absolutely.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     European centrist politicians call this 'the race to the bottom'. The US is leading the race to the bottom. The US will win the race to the bottom.
                     
                     It entails transferring more and more income from ordinary folk to the wealthy.
                     
                     Wages get lower. Dividends get bigger.
                     
                     And of course, many in America blame Mexicans for this phenomena, lol.
                     
                     You are doomed, unless you grasp what is going on.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, if "European centrist's" stand on their head, playing childish games with the lives of others, then the bottom looks up, doesn't it?
                        
                        As they forcibly take from one to give to another, without any compensation, they are indeed heading for the bottom whether they call it the top or not.
                        
                        And yes, you are doomed unless you can grasp the concept of equitable return for what is proffered.  This doesn't mean playing Robin Hood; it means giving value for value returned.  To do otherwise creates a society without producers - a society where the people think they are owed something for doing nothing.  Truly, a race to the bottom, and a race that will inevitably doom that society while declaring it is "moral" somehow to steal what others have worked to create.

                        replyreport
5. 89

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   What don't you understand about this graph?
   
   
   
   It will look worse when updated to 2017.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Part of the answer is the over supply of labor, including undocumented immigrants. They drive wages down. It is simple supply and demand. This combined with over generous welfare has kept many able bodied people from the work force. The labor participation rate is the lowest in many decades. Combine that with a failed public education system that does not provide the basic training or skills that we need. We end up with an increased H1B visa system that replace domestic workers with foreign workers...
      Get the picture...it is not always a greedy corporation. They respond to fiscal and tax policies. It is cheaper to outsource and move plants overseas than keep them in the US.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Is it your claim then that a worker should be paid extra for using machinery purchased by an employer that amplifies their productivity?  That seems more than a little counter-productive to me, and doubly so when the worker is actually spending less time and effort to produce anything than at any time in the past.
      
      Can you explain why the extra productivity is to be credited to the worker rather than the machine purchased and owned by the employer?  Or perhaps you need to spend some time actually considering what the graph means rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions that fit with your entitlement philosophies.

      replyreport
6. 89

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   That graph tells a pretty simple story. Up until the Reagan era, Americans shared equally in the country's increasing wealth, Since Reagan, things have either stagnated or gone downhill for all but the very wealthy.
   
   That is what would be expected in a low tax, rightwing economy. It fits the pattern of developing countries where civil society is weak, the law and legislatures are owned by the wealthy and ordinary people have little say in any aspect of economic life.
   
   The rich elites fight among themselves over any new way of making money, but very little new wealth filters down.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is also what is expected in a society farming out all their high paying jobs and replacing what is left with automation, all while providing ever more charity for those that don't want to change jobs.
      
      You blame the rich for fairly earning their wealth; I blame the people for greed and refusal to learn new things.  You claim it's because of low taxes (while forgetting that there are more taxes collected than ever before, and that the rich are paying more than ever before) and ignoring the social implications (primarily lack of incentive) of unlimited charity.  You claim that people are forced to work for peanuts, while forgetting that the force is themselves.  About all I'll agree with is that there is little fight among the common people to find new ways of making money, but one of the primary reasons is that there is no reason to do so as they can simply collect what they have claimed as their "entitlement" for being alive.  That and the endless restrictions on business that those same people insist are necessary.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         By your formulation there is no future except for the very wealthy. Only the owners of technology can expect life to improve. For the rest, it is a slow retreat into poverty.
         
         Why would you defend such a system?
         
         You really are setting the stage for extreme ideologies. If Western free market market capitalism fails the bulk of the population the old demons of communism or fascism will make a comeback.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That's your version, not mine.  Why not learn to use that technology, making yourself 5X as valuable, and reap the rewards?  Why not use it to make super cheap, high quality products that anyone can afford?
            
            Modern socialism is and has failed too many countries already - the "everything is free" concept will ultimately result in dictatorship or communism, with a massive loss for all but the very top.  Why would you defend such a system, where it is already proven to fail with the expected results?  Why would you relegate people to a lifetime of charity, without pride, self reliance or being able to build anything for themselves? 
            
            And no, I'm not being facetious or sarcastic.  This is what I see happening, and so would you if you but choose to look.  A populace happy to live off others, unable to provide for their own needs and without any desire to do so if they could.  This is NOT a happy society; it is a degenerate one, and one that WILL fall in the near future.  When the plebes find they can vote themselves bread and circuses at someone else's cost the end is not far off.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Third world it is, then.

               replyreport