100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Men don't drop anchor babies, Illegal Alien mothers do | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 05/22/10 08:47 PM
|
|
I understand, msharmony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You folks are aware most countries in the world do not honor anchor babies from any nation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You folks are aware most countries in the world do not honor anchor babies from any nation! You know it's kinda pointless tryin' to talk reality here, right ... ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You folks are aware most countries in the world do not honor anchor babies from any nation! f a country follows jus soli, anyone born inside its borders is deemed to be a citizen. If a country follows the other approach of "jus sanguinis" or right of blood. Under that approach, you inherit a parent’s citizenship. So, if your father and mother were each from a different jus sanguinis nation and you were born in a jus soli jurisdiction, you would be able to claim citizenship in three countries. First of all, there are several exceptions to whatever rule a country follows because of treaties. Children of foreign diplomats are recognized as being citizens of the country that sent their parents there. Secondly, people born on a foreign flag ship or airliner are entitled to claim citizenship in the country under whose flag the vessel was registered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness That said, let me show you the most complete listing that I could find on the net from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli Jus soli is common in developed countries that wished to increase their own citizenry. It is also recognized in some developing countries, most notably Pakistan. Some countries that observe jus soli include: * Argentina * Barbados * Brazil * Canada * Colombia * Jamaica * Mexico * Pakistan * Peru * Romania * United States * Uruguay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
States and territories that observe jus soli include:
* American Samoa (birth in American Samoa renders American Samoan and U.S. nationalities, but no birthright to U.S. citizenship) * Antigua and Barbuda * Argentina * Azerbaijan * Barbados * Belize * Bolivia * Brazil * Canada * Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) * Colombia * Dominica * Dominican Republic * Ecuador * El Salvador * Fiji[6] * Grenada * Guatemala * Guyana * Honduras * Jamaica * Lesotho * Mexico * Nicaragua * Pakistan * Panama * Paraguay * Peru * Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic * Saint Christopher and Nevis * Saint Lucia * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines * Trinidad and Tobago * Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus * United States * Uruguay * Venezuela In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries: * United Kingdom on 1 January 1983 * Australia on 20 August 1986 * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005 * New Zealand on 1 January 2006 * France also operates a modified form of jus soli German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000 to introduce a modified concept of jus soli. Prior to that date, German nationality law was based entirely on jus sanguinis |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 05/22/10 09:20 PM
|
|
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. a goal is not a mandate,,, it is that which one is expected to TRY to do a quota is a MANDATE, that which one MUST do surely, watching our election process, one can understand the difference between saying 'we are going to TRY to have,,,,' and 'we will have' I sure get tired of lookin' up chit that I lived, just to be slammed by undereducated folks. One more time, I'll show you proof where, if businesses didn't comply within the suggested time, they had fines levied against them. It still happens today. Contractors fined for women, minority hiring failures ... PRO FOOTBALL; Lions Fined Over Minority Hiring Implicit Quotas Abstract Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity. By constructing a simple model of employer-auditor interaction, it is shown that when an auditor has imperfect information regarding employers’ proclivities to discriminate and the fraction of qualified minorities in each employers applicant pool, goals are synonymous with quotas. Technically speaking, any equilibrium of the auditing game involves a non-empty set of employers that hire so that they do not trigger an audit by rejecting qualified non-minorities, hiring unqualified minorities, or both. Further, under some assumptions, explicit quotas (those mandated by an auditor) are more efficient than implicit quotas (goals settled upon in equilibrium by employers wishing to avoid an audit). GOO-GOO it. uh,, what you just posted was NOT affirmative action,,,, 'Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity.' preferred TO ,, not preferred AS A PART OF what you did post was an example of another authority (judge or auditor) imposing some quota to correct an inequality PROVEN to exist. There is no affirmative action law or regulation which imposes a quota. BS again. That came from Harvard law. GOO-GOO it. The posts I made earlier came right out of aa pdf 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. AA has been less and less attractive over the years. 1997 The anti-affirmative action initiative Proposition 209 narrowly passes in California. Enrollment of students of color in the University of California system declines within one year. 1998 Washington State passes I-200, a similar antiaffirmative action initiative. 1999 Governor Jeb Bush of Florida issues Executive Order 99-281, ending affirmative action in state contracting and higher education. Agin' GOO-GOO it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And nations who made changes to their jus soli laws:
* United Kingdom on 1 January 1983 * Australia on 20 August 1986[2] * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2] * New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2] * South Africa on 6 October 1995[2] * France also operates a modified form of jus soli All imposing restrictions like the naturalization of the parents before the child is born there but retroactive should the parents become citizens. Add Germany to this list. Now how many other nations do not support jus soli? How about CHINA for starters! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 05/22/10 09:20 PM
|
|
EO11246 Section 202.1 The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. OH MY GOSH << HOW RACIST OF THEM,,,,lol still have yet to see the actual part of a law or regulation which is expressly discriminatory,, and I suspect that I won't in the near future either But, the discrimination comes in when the government sets " minimums " of minorities that have to be employed. You could have 20 people working for you, all of them HIGHLY qualified, go to hire more, and have to hire people less qualified simply because the government says so. quotas are not part of affirmative action,,,what you describe might happen if a company has been PROVEN to actively discriminate in hiring,,,and even then, there only has to be proven an honest EFFORT to provide the opportunities to others,,, on a side note,, there have been Isolated occasions when a JUDGE has mandated a numeric quota , but this is extremely rare and something separate from affirmative acton Check history. When that AA was first implicated, you bet a lot of employers hollered about having to turn down more qualified folks because they had to fill their quota. A few times, I was turned down because they didn't have the proper ratio. They weren't shy about tellin' you either. Even now. With Gov. or Civil Service jobs, it's almost impossible to fire a lazy minority. If that same lazy person wasn't minority, they'd be out the door in a New York minute. check the laws,, history tells us about what happens , not what the LAW mandates... there is noplace in the laws and regulations which fall under the category of Affirmative Action, which requires quotas in hiring,(there are cases where the judicial system mandates in individual cases that quotas be established) if there is, I would gladly learn a little more and read about it and I could also inform my mother who made a living investigating EEO complaints... and who taught me much of what I have learned regarding civil rights, AA , and EEO (although she knows it much more inside and out than I ever could) I was in the workforce then. 1969 President Nixon’s “Philadelphia Order” presents “goals and timetables” for reaching equal employment opportunity in construction trades. It is extended in 1970 to non-construction federal contractors. By this time, 7.8% of college students aged 18-24 are black. 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments Act prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Goals and timetables is a fancy term for Quotas. Have to have so many by such and such a time. a goal is not a mandate,,, it is that which one is expected to TRY to do a quota is a MANDATE, that which one MUST do surely, watching our election process, one can understand the difference between saying 'we are going to TRY to have,,,,' and 'we will have' I sure get tired of lookin' up chit that I lived, just to be slammed by undereducated folks. One more time, I'll show you proof where, if businesses didn't comply within the suggested time, they had fines levied against them. It still happens today. Contractors fined for women, minority hiring failures ... PRO FOOTBALL; Lions Fined Over Minority Hiring Implicit Quotas Abstract Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity. By constructing a simple model of employer-auditor interaction, it is shown that when an auditor has imperfect information regarding employers’ proclivities to discriminate and the fraction of qualified minorities in each employers applicant pool, goals are synonymous with quotas. Technically speaking, any equilibrium of the auditing game involves a non-empty set of employers that hire so that they do not trigger an audit by rejecting qualified non-minorities, hiring unqualified minorities, or both. Further, under some assumptions, explicit quotas (those mandated by an auditor) are more efficient than implicit quotas (goals settled upon in equilibrium by employers wishing to avoid an audit). GOO-GOO it. uh,, what you just posted was NOT affirmative action,,,, 'Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity.' preferred TO ,, not preferred AS A PART OF what you did post was an example of another authority (judge or auditor) imposing some quota to correct an inequality PROVEN to exist. There is no affirmative action law or regulation which imposes a quota. BS again. That came from Harvard law. GOO-GOO it. The posts I made earlier came right out of aa pdf Agin' GOO-GOO it. lol, dude, I dont need to google for reading comprehension of what YOU posted. your previous post mentioned timetables and goals, which I stated are not the same as a MANDATED QUOTA and then the beginnning of your next post was 'Employment or admission “goals” are often preferred to affirmative action as a way of obtaining diversity' that is YOUR post,, it compares TWO different things,,,one is goals and the other is affirmative action,,,meaning they are NOT one in the same. IN the case of the Lions, that was a program specific to the NFL, and it could be considered an affirmative action policy, but it not an affirmative action LAW , it only applies within that entity and is audited by personell of that entity and not a state or federal body. perhaps the NFL could be contested to change or eliminate THAT specific program,,,but that would not mean that ALL affirmative actions and policies needed to be changed or elminated AFfirmative Action is used to DESCRIBE certain types of laws and policies,,,much like Civil Law, or Family Law people continue to talk about AA as if it were in itself ONE law,,,which says to me that they are maybe missing the forest for the trees... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And nations who made changes to their jus soli laws: * United Kingdom on 1 January 1983 * Australia on 20 August 1986[2] * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2] * New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2] * South Africa on 6 October 1995[2] * France also operates a modified form of jus soli All imposing restrictions like the naturalization of the parents before the child is born there but retroactive should the parents become citizens. Add Germany to this list. Now how many other nations do not support jus soli? How about CHINA for starters! Still not what you posted is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody needs to 'splain me some simple math ... if ONE illegal makes ANOTHER illegal pregnant and BOTH illegals travel illegally into the U.S. where the FEMALE illegal drops her bioload on OUR soil, how does ILLEGAL + ILLEGAL = LEGAL ... ? Somebody 'splain me dat, please ... it doesn't Yes it does. Why do you think once their pregnant they try to get across state lines then after the have the baby and get caught they scream our Government is trying to break families up. Enough is enough. Kick them all out if they are illegal. Tighten up opur borders and give the shot to kill order on anyone who is is in anyway getting violent or trafficing drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And nations who made changes to their jus soli laws: * United Kingdom on 1 January 1983 * Australia on 20 August 1986[2] * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2] * New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2] * South Africa on 6 October 1995[2] * France also operates a modified form of jus soli All imposing restrictions like the naturalization of the parents before the child is born there but retroactive should the parents become citizens. Add Germany to this list. Now how many other nations do not support jus soli? How about CHINA for starters! Still not what you posted is it? To what is the purpose of this question?? I have wanted the Anchor baby laws done away with. I however agree with the MODIFIED versions of the jus soli laws of these countries! I am tired of America always having to set some kind of example for the world. We already shown them the road to greatness and China is using it against us and other nations just act like pig wallows. I am tired of us casting pearls to swine. It is pointless. And we are supposed to reward people for breeding? We need fewer people on this planet right now, not more! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect your right to have an opinion.. but I think one should try to INFORM themself before coming to a conclusion Affirmative Action is not A LAW. Affirmative Action refers to a NUMBER of laws and regulations aimed towards opening up opportunities to all(initially created to offset the exclusion of groups like minorities, women, and the handicapped). There are places and instances where AA is overstated and needs to be revised. But everything labeled AA is not inherently discriminatory in any sense, on the contrary, it is mostly measures to COMBAT previous and existing discrimination. thats not my opinion either, you can actually look up the laws, and regulations, as well as how they are worded. this is my opinion though,,,,those who oppose AA because of incidents of misuse are not much different than those who oppose law enforcement because of incidents where they or others were misused, or those who oppose government because theydon't agree with some political policies, or like wanting to throw out the whole constitution because of a section that made some people worth less than others ...its a knee jerk and overdramatic reaction If there are things that need fixing,,fix those things, instead of bagging the whole effort,,, Affirmative action gives special points to minorities that can take a job or scholarship away from someone who is actually more qualified as happened at a Target I worked at in the early 90's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And nations who made changes to their jus soli laws: * United Kingdom on 1 January 1983 * Australia on 20 August 1986[2] * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2] * New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2] * South Africa on 6 October 1995[2] * France also operates a modified form of jus soli All imposing restrictions like the naturalization of the parents before the child is born there but retroactive should the parents become citizens. Add Germany to this list. Now how many other nations do not support jus soli? How about CHINA for starters! Still not what you posted is it? To what is the purpose of this question?? I have wanted the Anchor baby laws done away with. I however agree with the MODIFIED versions of the jus soli laws of these countries! I am tired of America always having to set some kind of example for the world. We already shown them the road to greatness and China is using it against us and other nations just act like pig wallows. I am tired of us casting pearls to swine. It is pointless. And we are supposed to reward people for breeding? We need fewer people on this planet right now, not more! Considering you were not well educated on who had jus soli and who didn't because you said most do not and that was not correct. As for the jus soli here, we do not need to change that law. We need to resolve the illegal immigration issue. Make the ones who are here go through a punishment process and go to the end of the line and secure our borders. That is what needs to be done. If born here you should be a citizen here that is how it should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a dating site or a hating site? ...when a child is referred to as "bioload" I'd say the answer here Atlantis ..is hating site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make the ones who are here go through a punishment process and go to the end of the line and secure our borders. That is what needs to be done. I agree. Just one point. They should go to the end of the line in the country they came from and wait behind all those who have already done the application process and have been waiting their turn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a dating site or a hating site? ...when a child is referred to as "bioload" I'd say the answer here Atlantis ..is hating site. I agree. It is frustrating at best to see the amount of hatred shown on these boards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make the ones who are here go through a punishment process and go to the end of the line and secure our borders. That is what needs to be done. I agree. Just one point. They should go to the end of the line in the country they came from and wait behind all those who have already done the application process and have been waiting their turn. Can't back Nazi style roundups and deportation here in this country. Can't back discriminatory laws and actions from citizens or law enforcement here to make a certain type of human a target. So I would not add that to what I said. Get some kind of punishment set up, make them go to the back of the line for citizenship and get those borders under control. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UM Many of the nations you mentioned only RECENTLY adopted jus soli. The list was a lot shorter when I was in High School.
And now some more notable nations are changing it to make it more restrictive! JUST LIKE IT SHOULD BE! You must have some long arms because you sure seem to pat yourself on the back way too easily! I assure you, I am VERY educated and have forgotten more than you probably know! Wow, that almost sounds conceited! I had a BRUTAL teacher for Critical Reasoning in college. I was punished by the best. Come on and give me your best! If you want to wave paraphrased statements at me I can google like you but then again there are other data bases I can tap into besides the limitations of google. it is all in the amount of time I want to give to an argument and in this case why waste too much energy? I take it you are a very introverted person? If I ever made it as President and had enough of the congress behind me to do it I would invoke some serious changes you would just LOVE! Try this on, I would order illegal immigrants chased out wholesale under executive orders. Then I would take the war on drugs right into Mexico! Philpe Caulderone can kiss my azz! Let China say something about it. I will remind them about Tibet and to shut their mouths before I tell them I absolve us of our debt with them. Yeah, I have a dream. A dream of an America that people living her CAN look up to again! I want America to be the nation that stays one ahead of all the rest not because we are better but because we earn it through our deeds! Not because we give away the most money! I want our country to be feared by those who would harm us and respected by the rest! You want us all to dance around in tie dye tossing daises in a hallucinogenic daydream where everyone is holding hands under a rainbow! Sorry but that is not the real world nor is that human nature! Who is more evolved? A human or a Dolphin? Even Dolphins are effed up bastards! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 05/23/10 02:06 AM
|
|
I respect your right to have an opinion.. but I think one should try to INFORM themself before coming to a conclusion Affirmative Action is not A LAW. Affirmative Action refers to a NUMBER of laws and regulations aimed towards opening up opportunities to all(initially created to offset the exclusion of groups like minorities, women, and the handicapped). There are places and instances where AA is overstated and needs to be revised. But everything labeled AA is not inherently discriminatory in any sense, on the contrary, it is mostly measures to COMBAT previous and existing discrimination. thats not my opinion either, you can actually look up the laws, and regulations, as well as how they are worded. this is my opinion though,,,,those who oppose AA because of incidents of misuse are not much different than those who oppose law enforcement because of incidents where they or others were misused, or those who oppose government because theydon't agree with some political policies, or like wanting to throw out the whole constitution because of a section that made some people worth less than others ...its a knee jerk and overdramatic reaction If there are things that need fixing,,fix those things, instead of bagging the whole effort,,, Affirmative action gives special points to minorities that can take a job or scholarship away from someone who is actually more qualified as happened at a Target I worked at in the early 90's. please, show me the policy or law,,,,these claims always bother me because I wonder about a company that shares co applicants information/qualifications with each other. Particularly Target, which I imagine has sales, cashier, stock, and management positions. I dont know of any of those positions(besides management)which require a special skill set and most management positions I know of dont go on a 'point' system. But Target and Walmart have both jumped off on their own little world before,, so Im not saying its impossible. Just that it would be weird for such a large company to risk civil action by disclosing to an applicant that they actually hired someone else who wasnt as qualified. I have never personally heard of an employment policy under the Affirmative action guidelines that gave 'points'...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I respect your right to have an opinion.. but I think one should try to INFORM themself before coming to a conclusion Affirmative Action is not A LAW. Affirmative Action refers to a NUMBER of laws and regulations aimed towards opening up opportunities to all(initially created to offset the exclusion of groups like minorities, women, and the handicapped). There are places and instances where AA is overstated and needs to be revised. But everything labeled AA is not inherently discriminatory in any sense, on the contrary, it is mostly measures to COMBAT previous and existing discrimination. thats not my opinion either, you can actually look up the laws, and regulations, as well as how they are worded. this is my opinion though,,,,those who oppose AA because of incidents of misuse are not much different than those who oppose law enforcement because of incidents where they or others were misused, or those who oppose government because theydon't agree with some political policies, or like wanting to throw out the whole constitution because of a section that made some people worth less than others ...its a knee jerk and overdramatic reaction If there are things that need fixing,,fix those things, instead of bagging the whole effort,,, Affirmative action gives special points to minorities that can take a job or scholarship away from someone who is actually more qualified as happened at a Target I worked at in the early 90's. please, show me the policy or law,,,,these claims always bother me because I wonder about a company that shares co applicants information/qualifications with each other. Particularly Target, which I imagine has sales, cashier, stock, and management positions. I dont know of any of those positions(besides management)which require a special skill set and most management positions I know of dont go on a 'point' system. But Target and Walmart have both jumped off on their own little world before,, so Im not saying its impossible. Just that it would be weird for such a large company to risk civil action by disclosing to an applicant that they actually hired someone else who wasnt as qualified. I have never personally heard of an employment policy under the Affirmative action guidelines that gave 'points'...... MsHarmony....just a point of reference for you. Look up the University of Michigan and the Supreme Court decision that said their " points " system for minorities was unconstitutional. The lawsuit was brought because the University of Michigan was basing admissions on a points system that gave minorities more " points " just for being minorities. Now...had they NOT been doing that, and going strictly by the grades, many of those minority students would not have been admitted. But, of course, had they not been granting more points to minorities, then the University would have gotten into deep water with the Government. Because the Government determined that there should be a certain " percentage " of minorities. Explain to me, please, how the University could have POSSIBLY done the " right " thing. |
|
|
|
|
