Like we are not already in one.
Related: Second Tuesday in November
I just can't stop crying, sorry.
"Obama to take legal fight over immigration to Supreme Court; Fate of millions in limbo amid partisan conflict" by Alicia A. Caldwell Associated Press November 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Tuesday that it will ask the Supreme Court to save its plans to shield from deportation millions of immigrants living in the country illegally. The appeal advances a legal confrontation with 26 states during a presidential race already roiled by disputes over US immigration policy.
The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals late Monday effectively blocked President Obama’s plan to protect as many as 5 million immigrants, primarily the immigrant parents of US citizens and legal permanent residents. It upheld a Texas-based federal judge’s earlier injunction.
The ruling leaves in limbo the future of the program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, and promises by Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to go further than Obama to protect large groups of immigrants from deportation.
Just advancing the New World Order, as this worldwide migrant crisis has shown.
Can't people figure it out? The same people who have created the global mi$ery are the ones proposing to be the savior of those they have impoverished.
The same people who are benefiting from making those leaving the countryside and their homes to go to the cities and beyond.
The violent drug wars they are running from? Perpetuated by the same entities proclaiming to be fighting the problem and offering solutions.
Here in AmeriKa they offer a $lave labor cla$$ of people that won't complain and are not taxed, treated miserably under the noses of a government proclaiming to be pro-immigrant despite its revolving door of jails and detentions. Mistakes are made, violent criminals mistakenly released, blah, blah, blah.
One comes to the conclusion at the end that no one but the upper-percentile of elite globalists and their companies are the true beneficiaries, with the rest receive scraps if anything at all.
And why not? Soon we will have a world dictatorship; in fact, already have one through in$titutions like the IMF and World Bank, entities that impose austerity on nations and destroy social progress.
Clinton promised in May to expand Obama’s executive actions if Congress does not overhaul immigration laws. In October, she also pledged to be ‘‘less harsh and aggressive’’ than Obama in enforcing immigration laws.
Well, if there is one thing we have learned about campaign promises these last eight years.
Clinton said Tuesday that she hopes the case gets a quick and fair hearing ‘‘so that the millions who are affected can stop living in fear of their families being broken apart.’’
The future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally has been debated by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.
Earlier this month, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that if elected he would eventually end Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects from deportation immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.
Yeah, if you are against this administration you are against kids. Just ignore the ones the war machine is incinerating or causing to flee.
DACA, as the program is known, was seen as an administrative answer to the Dream Act, legislation once supported by Rubio that would provide legal status to those young immigrants.
To date, more than 720,000 young immigrants have been granted permission to live and work in the United States. That program is not affected by the appeals court ruling.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the case will ultimately be about the administration’s authority to decide how to use its limited resources in immigration enforcement.
The wars are well-funded, though. No problem there, nor is more aid to murderous Israel or whatever Wall Street wants.
‘‘We obviously continue to believe strongly in the legal power of the arguments that we have been making for nearly a year . . . about the importance of giving our law enforcement officials the discretion to implement our immigration laws in a way that focuses on those who pose a genuine threat to our national security or to our communities,’’ Earnest said.
They already have that and are failing.
Monday’s 70-page ruling rejected administration arguments that the district court had abused its discretion with a nationwide order and that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama’s orders.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck....
It acknowledged that an adverse ruling would discourage potential beneficiaries of DAPA from cooperating with law enforcement authorities or paying taxes. ‘‘But those are burdens that Congress knowingly created, and it is not our place to second-guess those decisions,’’ US Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority. Smith was appointed to the court by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan.
Illegals are paying taxes, huh?
So government knows all about illegal employment, this bankrupt, money-grabbing government.
In a 53-page dissent, Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the administration was within the law. She cast the decision to defer action on some deportations as ‘‘quintessential exercises of prosecutorial discretion’’ and noted that the Homeland Security Department has limited resources.
‘‘Although there are approximately 11.3 million removable aliens in this country today, for the last several years Congress has provided the Department of Homeland Security with only enough resources to remove approximately 400,000 of those aliens per year,’’ wrote King, who was appointed by a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.
Are you tired of excuses yet, American people?
It’s unclear when the Justice Department will file its appeal or whether the high court will take up the case, but the administration may be running out of time to get a final decision before Obama leaves office in early 2017.
He's waited to do a lot of things as the twilight of his terms approach (I hope, even though the next person will be worse; this guy is revolting at this point).Not fooled by the retroactive attempt to rewrite a completely failed presidency, sorry.
While the appeal moves forward, not much will change for the millions of immigrants Obama sought to help without action from Congress.
Really?
When Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program last year, they also rolled out a new set of priorities for immigration enforcement that focused on criminals, those who pose a threat to national security or public safety, and recent border-crossers.
The result is that the average immigrant whose only offense is living in the country illegally isn’t likely to face deportation.
They just surrendered!
During the last budget year, which ended in September, the administration removed about 231,000 immigrants living in the country illegally, according to internal government documents obtained by the Associated Press.
It was the fewest number of deportations since 2006 and a 42 percent drop since a record high of more than 409,000 in 2012.
When he needed to look tough and protect himself against charges while running for reelection. Ever the political opportunist, Obama!
--more--"
At least there is a job for you all:
"Federal judge strikes down Worcester panhandling laws" by Peter Schworm Globe Staff November 10, 2015
A federal judge has ruled that a pair of Worcester ordinances aimed at curbing panhandling violated constitutional free speech rights, a decision that followed removal of similar laws from the books in Lowell and Portland, Maine.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts had challenged the Worcester ordinances, which prohibited panhandling outside banks and theaters and made it illegal to “beg, panhandle, or solicit in an aggressive manner.” They also prohibited standing or walking on a traffic island or roadway except to cross.
Those are the rich people's areas, and was being patrolled, too.
Panhandlers are on the right track, though. Banks are where the money is; however, you need to work at one to $kim change.
Courts have consistently struck down blanket bans on panhandling, leading cities to narrow the scope of their restrictions. By targeting “aggressive panhandling” in the name of public safety, Worcester had sought to meet legal muster. The city won a case challenging its law in 2013, but the legal landscape has shifted because of a recent Supreme Court decision.
See: Supreme Court May Make You Homeless
As for the "aggressive panhandling," when is an ordinance going to be crafted against government lobbyists and not poor people? I know the politician isn't holding a can; he's holding a campaign funds account.
That about a TRULY FA$CI$T $OCIETY!!
On Monday, US District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman ruled that Worcester’s ordinances were too broadly written and as a result discriminated against panhandlers.
“Municipalities must go back to the drafting board and craft solutions which recognize an individual’s right to continue to solicit in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment, while at the same time, ensuring that their conduct does not threaten their own safety, or that of those being solicited,” Hillman wrote in a 30-page decision.
Hillman had backed the city in 2013, but in this week’s ruling he cited a recent Supreme Court decision, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which held that an Arizona town’s regulations of outdoor signs violated the free-speech rights of a church. Specialists say the Supreme Court decision, handed down in June, will have far-reaching ramifications on free-speech laws.
In June, the Supreme Court also vacated an appeals court decision upholding the Worcester ordinances in light of the Reed decision, returning the case to district court.
The ACLU, which sued Worcester on behalf of two homeless residents, hailed the judge’s decision, saying the ordinances were discriminatory.
“We’ve seen that these laws will consistently be struck down,” said Kevin Martin, the lead counsel in the ACLU’s three successful challenges. “Simply by labeling solicitation as aggressive, a city does not gain the right to ban it.”
The decision disappointed Worcester authorities, who said their ordinances targeted “behavior, not speech.”
“The city limited the scope of the ordinance to highly defined areas where the public safety issue was the greatest,” said the city’s solicitor, David Moore, who added that officials would meet soon to discuss how to proceed.
Yeah, we know what you did, why you did it, and for whom.
Citywide bans on panhandling in public increased by 25 percent in the United States from 2011 to 2014, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. Bans that seek to restrict panhandling to certain public places increased 20 percent.
Amazing how those bans increased as the economy has grown and wealth inequality soared. More homeless and poor, and yet economy looks good. Hmmm.
Boston has limited restrictions on panhandling, specialists say.
The general motivation is to “move visibly homeless people out of public spaces,” usually at the urging of affected businesses, said Tristia Bauman, senior attorney for the group.
Yeah, they usually have an attitude, but at least they don't hate them like in South Carolina, although it is not much better in a places like Florida or Arizona.
Maybe all the homeless should be moved into camps and executed. That would solve the problem (blog editor's tongue just poked through cheek).
But since the Reed decision, several courts have struck down bans, and other cities, such as Colorado Springs and Denver, have changed their enforcement practices, she said.
Michael Meltsner, a Northeastern University law professor, said ordinances that specifically target panhandling “go too far,” adding that broader laws are already on the books to handle public safety situations.
“Courts are slowly beginning to realize that poor people have a right to free speech, too, and it has to be protected,” he said.
Citizens United!
The Worcester decision followed two similar rulings against New England cities.
In September, an appeals court ruled Portland’s ban on panhandling and other activities on median strips was unconstitutional, saying it “indiscriminately bans virtually all expressive activity” in the areas.
“The city may have been motivated by a perfectly understandable desire to protect the public from the dangers posed by people lingering in median strips,” the court ruled. “But the city chose too sweeping a means of doing so, given the First Amendment interest in protecting the public’s right to freedom of speech.”
Or it may have been motivated to protect only certain $egments.
Last month in Boston, US District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock struck down a Lowell ordinance that banned vocal panhandling in the downtown and aggressive panhandling throughout the city.
“The First Amendment does not permit a city to cater to the preference of one group, in this case tourists or downtown shoppers, to avoid the expressive acts of others, in this case panhandlers, simply on the basis that the privileged group does not like what is being expressed,” wrote US District Judge Douglas Woodlock.
Doesn't seem so in the real world, does it?
In the Worcester case, Hillman ruled that at least some of the conduct targeted by the ordinance was defined narrowly enough to achieve the city’s goal of “promoting the safety and welfare of the public.” But recent decisions had showed that such laws were not “the least restrictive means of achieving the government’s goal.”
The only way you could really do that.... kill 'em all.
--more--"
At least I can afford a Globe now.
"He was laid off from a job as a program manager at Harvard’s Global Health Institute, a university network that aims to improve health care globally. He decided to change course. “I had never lost a job before, and for me, it was a shock,” he said. “My wife said, ‘Maybe this is an opportunity.’ ” After taking a few weeks off, he enrolled in a course for professional potters at Haystack Mountain School, with the idea of turning his hobby into a livelihood. Owning his own business is far more work than a full-time job."
So who needs a professional potter (pffft!)?
Shock therapy from the richest AmeriKan university didn't help his health much, and blogging won't make ends meet were I to want advertisements cluttering this spot, which I do not.
If only some agenda-pu$hing elite interest would Kick$tart me.
Oh, and about those work visas:
"Top companies ‘game’ visa system, leaving smaller firms out of luck" by Julia Preston New York Times November 11, 2015
Théo Négri, a young software engineer from France, had come up with so many novel ideas at his job at an Internet startup in San Francisco that the American entrepreneur who hired him wanted to keep him on.
So he helped Négri apply for a three-year work visa for foreign professionals with college degrees and specialized skills, mainly in technology and science. With his master’s degree from a French university and advanced computer abilities, Négri seemed to fit the bill.
But his application for the H-1B visa was denied, and he had to leave the United States.
See: H1-B Hijacking
Back in France, Négri used his data skills to figure out why.
The answer was simple: Many of the visas are given out through a lottery, and a small number of giant global outsourcing companies had flooded the system with applications, significantly increasing their chances of success. While he had one application in last year’s lottery and lost, one of the outsourcing companies applied for at least 14,000. The companies were squeezing out US employers like his boss.
“I had this great American dream that got broken,” Négri said, speaking by telephone from Lyon, France.
Congress set up the H-1B program to help US companies hire foreigners with exceptional skills, to fill open jobs and to help their businesses grow. But the program has been failing many US employers who cannot get visas for foreigners with the special skills they need.
I'm wondering what all you American college kids wasted all your student debt on.
Was it just four years of partying for a degree in politically-correct dogma?
Instead, outsourcing firms are increasingly dominating the program, federal records show. In recent years, they have obtained many thousands of the visas — which are limited to 85,000 a year — by learning to game the H-1B system without breaking the rules, researchers and lawyers said.
In some years, a US employer could snag one of these coveted visas at almost any time of the year. But recently, with the economy picking up, the outsourcing companies have sent in tens of thousands of visa requests right after the application window opens April 1. Employers who apply after a week are out of luck.
It's not really picking up for the vast majority, in fact, business section has been warning of slowdown, but don't let that spoil the happy narrative!
“The H-1B program is critical as a way for employers to fill skill gaps and for really talented people to come to the United States,” said Ronil Hira, a professor at Howard University who studies visas. “But the outsourcing companies are squeezing out legitimate users of the program. The H-1Bs are actually pushing jobs offshore.”
Say again?
Those firms have used the visas to bring their employees, mostly from India, for large contracts to take over work at US businesses.
Of the 20 companies that received the most H-1B visas in 2014, 13 were global outsourcing operations, according to an analysis of federal records by Hira. The top 20 companies took nearly 40 percent of the visas available — about 32,000 — while more than 10,000 other employers received far fewer visas each. And about half of the applications in 2014 were rejected entirely because the quota had been met.
Two of those applications came from Mark Merkelbach and his small engineering firm in Seattle. For water projects in China, he needed engineers and landscapers who speak Mandarin, a combination of skills he could not find in the local market. With his H-1B visas denied, Merkelbach had to move the jobs to Taiwan. Another denial went to Atulya Pandey, an entrepreneur from Nepal who founded an Internet company in the United States and now can no longer work in this country for his own firm.
The top companies receiving H-1B visas in recent years, Hira found, include Tata Consultancy Services, known as TCS, Infosys, and Wipro, all outsourcing giants based in India; Cognizant, with headquarters in New Jersey; and Accenture, a global operation incorporated in Ireland.
I can't Accenture this enough:
Defense Intelligence Agency Solutions for Intelligence Financial Management
Amazing how the war machine gets money from so many places, 'eh?
Good thing it creates so many jobs!
--more--"
Is that what kids are upset about on campus? Nope!
Now, Mizzou faces a much harder test
Racial tension no stranger to Missouri campus
Well, it is here because I'm tired of managed distractions of division facilitated by the same old jcrews.
Then there was some talk in Congre$$ as to whether they should get involved now that U.S. troops are in Syria working with ISIS, but you know.... hail victory.
