Obama is against the Law passed by the people of Arizona who as a majority support it because he views it as violating civil rights.
Now in his proposal for reform we have:
"It would create a national ID -- which is dubbed a "biometric social security card." Though Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes."
Biometric social security card. That's right DNA or Fingerprints MUST be given that identify you. Of course this will only be used for employment purposes. Of course it will! Just like now where you must use your Social Security Card to get a drivers license, go to college, and a host of other uses. The social security card with biometric identifier - that doesn't violate your rights.
Checking suspected criminals on the roadside is wrong, but tagging every single man woman and child with a biometric identifier... that's just fine.
Welcome to the New World Order. Go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid you can trust the Federal Government... sure you can.
I enjoyed your sarcasm.
Yep, just remember, eyeballs are everywhere... Freedom? What's that?
That's Ron without the medal of honor!
What do we have proof of? The idea (if you check) is a bipartisan proposal by Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham TO President Obama. As far as I could tell, there is no response from the White House and I can find no promise from Obama that he would NOT consider a tamper-proof ID as a way of closing employment loopholes.
So I don't see the justification for the '2-faced liar' assertion. To solve the problem of illegal immigration, a bunch of people will have to quit posturing and start working. I particularly commend Lindsey Graham for his involvement. He will certainly be targetted by the teabaggers as has McCain and Florida's Republican governor, Crist for crossing the aisle.
Much as the nuts in the GOP complain about Demorats not being 'bipartisan' - the GOP stamps out any Republican with a williingness to partner on solving problems. Once this trend is identified by the average moderate voter, the fringe groups who have taken over the GOP will be rejected or a 3rd party will replace the GOP as irrelevent.
Doug, with all due respect- when has ObamaNation ever promised truth?
As far as calling him president - yeah President of Kenya. But if you research it- I don't think that even Kenya even wants the liar back.
Here is something to think about that is TRUTH-I found this today and I really have to share it- it says:
FINALLY, OUR JUDICIAL IS AWAKENING.
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURTAP- WASHINGTON D.C.- (no name was given) I guess so that the person could keep their job so that a FAKE PRESIDENT can't get him fired...
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of the President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript from the school indicates that Obama, under the name BARRY SOETORO, received financial aid as a (FOREIGN STUDENT) from Indonesia as an undergraduate.The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. Hmmm- So far I agree with Mike that the man is a two face LIAR and in my book he is a terrorist to other countries and to ours! Now I will continue what was written-
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To Qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. It further states: This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he WAS first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. continued on next reply --
Finally Our Judicial is Awakening - Continued-
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.
Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's Citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to BLOCK disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing, but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. Mr Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
Finally Our Judicial is Awakening - Continued (note: I dugger62 am not the author of this - I am writing what was written by an unknown source as stated in the very first reply I gave- this is NOT MINE-
FINALLY, OUR JUDICIAL IS AWAKENING.
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT AP- WASHINGTON D.C (no name was given)
It continued to state:
Subject : The Issue of his Passport ?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering ONE SIMPLE QUESTION:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on the plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed though Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
It further continues-
Q : Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q : What passport did he travel under?
A : There are only three possibilities.
1.) He traveled with a U.S...Passport,
2.) He traveled with a British passport, or
3.) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q : Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981 ?
A : No....It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel " list in 1981.
Conclusion : When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport, or an Indonesian passport.
Finally Our Judicial is Awakening - Continued (note: I dugger62 am not the author of this - I am writing what was written by an unknown source as stated in the very first reply I gave- this is NOT MINE-
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1997.
It further states: Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981-2008. Given the destructive nature of HIS plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress - and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this , the better. If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then forget this and go into your cocoon. If you do care then pass this on.
End of what was written by an unknown source- AP- Washington D.C.
I heard of a literary scholar who for years tried to prove that William Shakespere did not produce the great plays. Instead they were written by a different playwright with the SAME NAME......
You birthers with your wacked out theories and unfounded accusations crack me up. The picture Ron posted (see above) comes to mind.
The AP uses stories which contain unnamed sources, but they don't use stories which ARE unnamed sources, BTW.
Good point Doug..
Seriously though when a child is born on US soil they become a US citizen
Due to his father's nationality at time of birth, Barack Obama was a British citizen at birth, then a Kenyan citizen after the 1963 Kenyan Nationality act and so had a Kenyan passport. When his mother married an Indonesian citizen and took Indonesian citizenship in 1966, Barack Obama was granted Indonesian citizenship and had an Indonesian passport. Obama also had a US citizenship and passport because of his mother and being born in HAWAII.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 … _usa.html`
Either way, he's a citizen. This debate is old and there are much more important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes and energy solutions. Or the oil spill that BP and the government failed to act fast enough for.
The idea of the biometric social security card as a cure for illegal immigration goes back at least as far as 2007 when republican David Drier tried pushing it through.
Requiring ID is not sinister or new. People just have their political axes to grind.
It is sinister - because it opens the possibility of abuse, if America goes in your favoured direction an extreme right administration can find and subdue objectors with ease. If America goes in the opposite direction to your favoured direction an extreme left administration can find and subdue objectors with ease. Either way is a possible threat liberty and freedom.
Oh, the possibility of abuse? I see
The possibility of abuse has always existed and always will. It's a specious argument.
Maybe you should go back and read the subject up again - if you need help when you get to the hard parts many people on here can help you.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm all set. Maybe you should read the actual law and its amendment instead of just placards from street demonstrations.
You seem to have a problem with understanding clearly written words. The issue is not the wording of the law, or the amendments, or the placards of objectors - it is a principle.
But the very idea of 'principles' is so clearly beyond your ability to grasp that to explain it further would be a waste of time.
And yet again you fall back on personal insults. Very disappointing.
If the best you've got is the possibility of abuse, then you either want to eliminate all laws or you've got nothing of substance against this one.
There is no personal insult here - it is clear from your inane posts that you are unable to grasp higher concepts, just trying to encourage you to do some relevant reading and thinking before speaking.
Hitler passed a whole rack of laws that were only possibilities of abuse when he created them - no doubt there were loads of blind apologists around then who stood by while the 'higher' concepts eluded them. Or of course they were shouted down by the brownshirt thugs who supported his horrendous laws for reasons that are hard to see now.
" it is clear from your inane posts that you are unable to grasp higher concepts"
There you go again with more insults. Come on, you can do better. Aren't you supposed to be a poet? Surely you have a better command of the language than to just use it for childish insults.
No insult - just the truth. you appear to be making it your business on here to misunderstand and misconstrue, this is behaving in a childish playground bully manner and if I point it out I don't see that you should have an issue with it. If you deliberately post simply to disrupt then I guess you are what you post.
Do you think that simply repeating the same personal insult over and over and saying "but it's true!" somehow mitigates it? I'm sure you know better than that and it would be better if you limited your remarks to the topic at hand rather than these inappropriate insults. Come on, give it a try.
"Hitler passed a whole rack of laws that were only possibilities of abuse when he created them"
Every law ever passed anywhere by anyone has carried with it the possibility of abuse. Nice emotive dropping of Hitler's name. Very subtle, very effective.
No -- this is called EXAMPLE - not something you are very fond of it would appear.
To ignore infringements of your liberty is to risk the same fate that befell followers of Hitler. I guess you could liken it to a troll - a kind of digital brownshirt, running around where people are talking and trying to intimidate them into staying silent. I don't think this will work so well in these forums which are full of normal people.
So now, in addition to completely ignoring my on-topic point and repeating the pointless, transparent "I mentioned HItler! That means I must be right!" fallacy, you chose to intensify the offense of your personal insult. I really think you should move on from the insults before you go too far. Come on, you can do better.
People really need to research the SS card! It was not suppose to be for ALL individuals.
As for the birth certificate- every one that has one is a slave- research it.
You can say what you will. Look at the Bond paper its on. 1933- research it.
"As for the birth certificate- every one that has one is a slave"
i think it is foolish to expect BHO to put forth documentation HE DOES NOT HAVE, Why would he not provide it and shut everyone up?
Somethings are just that simple if everyone needs proof and I had it GUESS WHAT i would whip that out and say "people here it is now shut the F up"
But he does NOT do this ... Why because HE CAN"T getting passports back in the 80-s and 90's was alot easier you just needed a pulse. As for the illegal INVADERS and thats what they are invaders they are coming here having anchor babies that are US Citizens by birth. Yet we digress into another more recent and dangerous topic. So in closing
If he had a birth certificate it would be good for him to show it. I'll have to make a post on this now...
Just for the record, he did provide proof of it. Then everyone huffed and puffed and said it wasn't real, that it didn't have a raised seal, wasn't watermarked, blah blah blah. He had it posted the short hand version on his campaign website and it has since been confirmed by HI state employees as valid.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 … e_usa.html
I actually think this is a good idea.. make of that what you will.
I don't see that there is really any other alternative. Sure we can increase border security, leak tons more tax dollars into a system that OBVIOUSLY isn't working. If they can't get jobs here, they won't come here. I am not saying I am opposed to immigration, however it can be and should be done legally. Not to mention if we can put the kibosh on the amount of illegal immigrants coming here, more and more legal ones can come in who have educational backgrounds and can contribute to our country in a better way.
The debate is that business owners won't be able to afford $800 for the machines to read them... but can they really afford the fines associated with hiring "illegal immigrants"?
· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;
· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or
· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.
What's the harm anyway? All it's going to ensure is that when you get a job, YOU are YOU. That your SSC was not created in a back room somewhere and falsely assigned. It's going to make employers more responsible. Less able to say "oops" I didn't know and make them accountable to appropriate fines.
Non-citizens can still apply for a work visa and become citizens who contribute to our society by paying taxes. That's the issue anyway, why should we have to pay when they don't? Able to reap the benefits of a healthier government they want to be in and with that have all the same accountability we do.
Whenever you sign up for a new job you have to give them your SS#, your identification information, how many dependents you have, your current mailing address and for more and more jobs the
routing number of your bank and account information. What more are you really worried about? Them getting your thumbprint too? They already have it! Probably have since your first field trip to the police station in 5th grade.
I agree with most of what you say here - the point is that it is unnecessary for illegal immigration. To heavily fine employers would do the job much more efficiently, be much more easy to police, and be much more effective. Digital ID for everyone is a dream of government itself that seeks more and tighter controls to consolidate its own necessity - and it is an idea counter to every argument for less government from left or right.
When you get to an objective analysis you find that employers want a free pass - and they want open borders - or disfuncional closed borders - and employers are quite willing to let cops play whack-a-mole with illegals, deport them so they can sneak back in. The harasment of dark-skinned people does a lot for the white culture in the USA who used to control everything and feel that control slipping away as the USA becomes multicultural - and WASP America ceases to be a majority.
The ONLY place that border security works is at the point of employment. However this only works is there is SOME methid of determination - WHO is allowed to work. How this can be done without it being a potentially invasive tool is a serious question. But if no answer is found to employment verification (with serious - even criminal - penalties) - the issue of border security and illegal aliens is a dog and pony show for the conservative AND liberal peasants.
"The bill would make it illegal for anyone other than an employer to ask to see the enhanced social security card: "Possession of a fraud-proof social security card will only serve as evidence of lawful work-authorization but will in no way be permitted to serve--or shall be required to be shown--as proof of citizenship or lawful immigration status. It will be unlawful for any person, corporation; organization local, state, or federal law enforcement officer; local or state government; or any other entity to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes. No personal information will be stored on the electronic chip contained within the social security card other than the individual's name, date of birth, social security number, and unique biometric identifier" ~huffington post
All the biometric identifier is is a digital fingerprint. Like I said earlier.. "the man" already has it.
I agree with Doug and alternate as stated previously when you say that the only effective way to police illegal immigrations is through the employer. Right now it is almost impossible for employers to be fined at all. Why? Because there is no firm documented way to determine if the employer knew or not that the immigrant was/is illegal. Thus, the only solution is some sort of national ID.
But you already have ID, your driving license and birth certificate, bank details, etc etc. Any employer can check these to their satisfaction already I am sure.
The whole thing reeks of duplicity to me, cheap labour has always been the mainstay of American production, and always there has been political double-dealing. The unions were effectively neutralised by union bosses turning them into mafia style organisations, and of course forced labour for poor immigrants never mind the direct slavery.
Where the heck is the Mike guy who created this topic anyway?!
Your right, I already have id.. valid point and it does seem like it would be a pain to get a new SSC, however.. if they do what was originally proposed, which was the national ID, then it could and would be implemented at the time of my drivers license or for those without them state ID renewals. Now that seems to me the most realistic approach, also perhaps to some the least intrusive. Though if I am not mistaken, this has already been thrown out, so that leaves the new SSC perk; the "identifier" would only be shown to employers.. so to others that would be less intrusive. The fact of the matter is, there is no easy answer. I see both sides, however when it comes to a solution, the only one that makes sense to me, is the new card. I could care less whether it's my DL or my SSC.
They already know about me. I'm not scared
As for double dealing, yes there is always that, people will always be used for cheap labour, which is why I don't understand why people are fighting the solution so much. I am quite liberal and I am not worried, maybe I can be convinced otherwise.. but so far I am not. As for poor immigrants and slavery in the economic struggle they experience, I would hope that by enforcing a legalization process that actually works we will see a decrease in farm practices along with a decrease in human trafficking. With this law change and implication, perhaps a desparation to get here that leads to shady people taking advantage of desparate people will end.
If we can actually get to a point where the "illegal" part of immigrants is taken out, perhaps we can look at and focus some resources in a way to offer better, more legitimate opportunity for them in the "land of the free", rather than trying to figure out if they belong here or not.
There are freedom issues around ID tagging that go way back, the possibility that government can know who and where you are at all times is not frightening to you now, but imagine if the far right got into power and started 'cracking down' on those who oppose their views - maybe for example they wanted to force you to attend chapel 3 times a week, or maybe you become an 'objector' if they come and take away your foreign neighbour.
This has happened many times before in history, Hitler's Germany is the most obvious, but in my mother's time in England, 20's to the 40's she was forced to attend chapel, was not allowed to speak her native tongue in her native country (Wales) and many other humiliations imposed from her teachers, ministers and employers.
It is not unusual for these things to come into law through well intentioned administration, but later admin may not be so liberal.
Ok, last post of the night, then I am off to catch zzz's.
They are not proposing a tracking device. They are proposing a card with a finger print on it that can be read by a computer. If it were anything more than that, I have faith in hackers all over the country catching on faster than the white house can say "oh shit".
We are not being forced to attend chapel or to wear a yellow star that will label, segregate and mutilate us.
All thats being proposed is finding a way to enforce a law that is already in place.
Personally, I don't think it's up to us anyway, who lives where. Somewhere along the way society really screwed up, repeatedly. But that is a forum topic for another day.
In the health care reform- it will require everyone to be chipped. Not a card what so ever.
Nobody is being 'chipped'... I am not sure who started this paranoid fantasy, but I wish we didn't have to keep putting it down so we can discuss issues that are REAL.
Actually Doug, this was proposed in the HC reform bill, to either have a chip implant (not to track) or a National ID that would hold a persons entire medical history and could be used as some sort of debit system for co-pays and suck. Or perhaps even both. This bill has passed and should be distributed over the next 36 months.
Other states have outlawed the technology, Virginia in particular not because they don't see the benefit of the technology but because they think it's the "mark of the beast" and a symbolic religious importance.
From what I understand, and whats still up for debate, are the concerns that have risen and being readdressed is the "additional" information being collected on the card over time and exactly what that means.
I feel the issue here should be "mandatory", that's the part I don't like and you don't like. This is also the part that is a LIE. It won't be mandatory for you to receive HC or even public hc. This is a lie spread by conservatives. It's the language of the bill that was misunderstood and has people in an uproar.
"But the language in the bill has almost* nothing to do with mandatory implantable microchips or the surveillance of patients. It simply creates a database to make sure that companies aren’t selling knee and hip replacements that don’t cause problems for patients later in life." Bill Edwards
http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/1000568 … -implants/
I can see the pro's to technology such as this for the elderly, for rock climbers, travelers, children and for people with diabetes or other allergies and medical conditions that should be known during admittance to the hospital or in an ambulance.
What about losing your your brakes and running into a tree? You're unconcious and can't answer a question that could save your life.
Face it. This is progress, like it or not. It's coming and there's nothing we can do about it. Some change is very hard to accept.
Will it help more than it hurts. That's my question.
NOBODY has proposed a manditory chip that you are going to have implanted. That's a paranoid fantasy. That's the line I object to.
The idea of having medical history on a chip has merit if it's kept up to date AND if the method of storing data is standardized. If 2 or 3 major companies design incompatable systems, that's worse than no system. An answer to that is standardization, and I think that's the objective in the health care bill - not the paranoid fantasy.
I agree with you, and that's what I was trying to say. It's not mandatory, that is the lie being spread.
"the possibility that government can know who and where you are at all times is not frightening to you now, but imagine if the far right got into power and started 'cracking down' on those who oppose their views - "
Because of course such things could only come from the 'right' and never the 'left.'
"FINALLY, OUR JUDICIAL IS AWAKENING.
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURTAP- WASHINGTON D.C.- (no name was given) I guess so that the person could keep their job so that a FAKE PRESIDENT can't get him fired"
Anyone who is still running around trying to make Obama out to be a non-American citizen needs to have their words analyzed with extra scrutiny, for if they can be so bereft of sense in this case they are probably misguided, at best.
The government will have fingerprints? They already do. They have your bank account numbers too, especially if your tax refunds are being sent electronically...and far more means are capable of being utilized against persons by the government that the implications stated here regarding this id card are kind of silly.
I have no problem with an identification system that will be more difficult to tamper with. Fingerprints have been used for thousands of years as a means of identifying property and identity.
Now, if real reforms, like the DREAM Act, can be implememented, then we will see positive and effective action. But, it is stalled in committee.
Sab Oh - you are now answering your own posts come on, calm down and get a grip. Try reading back over what is actually said, not what is in your imagination, then try a coherent answer.
"Sab Oh - you are now answering your own posts"
I'm trying to figure out if you two are fighting or playing.
I am playing - he is being a troll - he is also Padrino, TKSenseless, and several more avatars that run around commenting like retarded children in an adult playground.
Pathetic little trolls
"I am playing - he is being a troll - he is also Padrino, TKSenseless, and several more avatars that run around commenting like retarded children in an adult playground."
Your constant insults do not reflect well on you, sir.
your constant following me around and posting drivel does not reflect well on you - how about we call it a day and you go annoy someone else and I won't insult you any more ?
How about I continue to express my views and you just grow up a little and stop with the insults?
that's fine - so you won't post any more one line insulting comments to get the thread off track and I will stop insulting you - ok
There are no conditions. YOU just need to stop with the insults, if you are capable of that level of self control. Are you?
You have a serious reverse polarity defect - you started insulting me as soon as I got here - but you don't like it when you get it back.
Maybe you could work a little on the self esteem, go back and finish school maybe? get to grips with the concepts of discussion, information, reasoned argument - then I guess we can get along just fine.
It is nice to see a well balanced thread title with "a two faced liar" in it.
haha, right. People are being relatively civil.
AP - I understand the theoretical threat of an ID system. But the problem that's here now is real. Employers want an escape so they can keep hiring illegal labor. There is a thriving business in counterfeit documents. They don't have to be good enough to fool a cop - just good enough to give an employer an escape from liability.
There is the conflict - and it's not pretty. Either the current system with the prospect of draconian law enforcement which satisfys the blood lust of conservatives but doesn't address the problem - or an effective ID system with the privacy concerns you voice.
The 3rd effective option would require a virtual seal of the border - and I mean cutting off trade and tourism, a cure worse than the problem. On the right or the left, if you want to solve if, you are going to have to square off with the reality.
Or of course you could put in an illegal alien visitors permit that would allow you all to take advantage of the near slave wage labour the economy needs and leave them in peace! and then send them back home when times are hard.
The economy doesn't need the illegal, exploitive conditions encouraged by illegal immigration.
Exploitative conditions are your history, from exploiting immigrants to direct slavery, to the mob control of the unions - why stop now when the economy needs it and they are there anyway, just legitimise the current exploitation, better for you and better for them !
Except that doing this is a gross violation of human rights. Everything you just said and implied you were against. If people become citizens and we have a working system then they can work here and receive livable wages. We need to take out the black market of employers and doing so will address and perhaps cure the advantages taken of these people. The consequences of slave labor and human trafficking over the border can be stopped, finally and we can offer them the rights and responsibilities that come with being US citizens.
by OLYHOOCH 10 years ago
A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card1934 - 1980With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans want to take away the old people's Social Security. Just in...
by lovelydog 8 years ago
How do I get a new social security card? How to replace a social security card?I have just lost my social security card and wonder to know where can I replace my social security card. That's to say, how can I get a replacement of my social security card?
by Vince Alvino 7 years ago
Do you change the name on social security card when married?
by mikelong 13 years ago
Emails have been spread around claiming that a Federal Court in California will be meeting tomorrow (1/26/2010) to determine if President Obama is qualified as a natural born American citizen to hold Executive office..This case was, of course, dismissed on October 29th of last year.This has not...
by Beth Perry 8 years ago
If you are a legal immigrant to the U.S. or have parents or grandparents that were legal...immigrants, how do you feel about President Obama's desire to "go it alone" without Congressional approval on immigration reform for the millions of undocumented people that came here illegally? As...
by Greg Schweizer 5 years ago
DACA was only supposed to be a temporary solution originated by Obama. Why did anyone living underDACA never take the initiative to apply for US citizenship? They had plenty of time and now they are crying. I would just like to know why they didn't move in that direction.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|