I think you know that " :rolleyes: " is not allowed in GD, so I wonder why you chose to use it.
And you didn’t translate it for a largely English-speaking audience. Ain’t that a fucking surprise?
I’m not doubting you, but I’d like to see a cite for this. As far as I know, you need to be a permanent resident or have a student visa to enroll in classes.
I have a buddy who got his green card at 21, but had lived here since 11. From what I know, these laws were about people like him- people who have lived a signifigant and qualifying portion of their lives in a state, but would normally be denied in-state tuition because they were not legal at the time.
Because to file a 1040, one must have an identification number (SSN) recognized by the government. Only a tiny fraction of illegal aliens get a forged SSN and those cannot file without revealing their presence when the person who holds the legitmate SSN also files a 1040.
Regardless of the separate argument that they should not have a right to public education, it is false that they do not pay for the education that they receive.
Your statement in this thread was that
This is clearly inaccurate. In one instance, one group of Muslim Canadians asked that they be allowed to invoke their religious law in governing marital disputes in the same manner that Christian and Jewish groups had long been using their religious laws to help resolve marital disputes (in ways that reduced the burden on the public legal system), and one xenophobic Premier decided to kill the existing programs. You may agree with the Premier’s actions, but your claim is in error: Canada is NOT “having to make accommodation” (they chose to not do it) and it is not an ongoing problem (it was a single incident).
Who is going to pay for it? Who should pay for it? Whether it is in the hospital or outside, someone has to. My guess is that the hospitals that have closed looked into separatiing out non-emergency care, but who pays for it if not the hospital?
Not exclusively. This article (warning: PDF) from September 2005, indicates that at the time of its writing that two states—Texas and New York—allowed illegals in-state tuition. I know this is also an issue in the immigration bill in the senate and in certain states, North Carolina, for one.
It is my understandiong that Sharia law was at issue. The Premier felt that if they were to grant exception on some parts of Sharia law they may have to grant exceptions to more extreme aspects of Sharia. Now I don’t think I agree with the “xenophobic” (sigh) Premier’s decision. I think it shows cowardice in the same way that xero-tolerance policies in shools do. No one wants to risk offending anyone by discriminating between Person A and Person B, or Law Set A and Law Set B.
In reading this over, I am basing it on one assumption, that although I think it is supported by the link I provided. That assumption is that the laws that the Muslims were asking to be acknowledged were part of Sharia, but didn’t include the extreme nut-job stuff. Here is an excerpt:
If there is an error in my statement it is in the timeing. I said “Right now,…”. This was pulled from a previous post and I didn’t correct it for time. My mistake.
So you don’t have any proof huh? I think most of us around here expected that.
Talk about ridiculous. But you apparently can’t be bothered by facts . You’re apparently only concerned with these little make believe scenarios of yours that are far removed from reality.
“Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 2,720,000 or 0.00% or 100 people in USA”
" Prevalance of Dengue fever: 100 to 200 cases reported annually to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mostly in people who have recently traveled abroad."
At 1:16 AM, a mosquito alights on the arm of one Scott Johnson, a Hawaiian who had moved to El Paso earlier that week. Scott Johnson has dengue fever. At 3:18 said mosquito departed the Northwest window through a crack in the screen. At approximately 3:42 AM said mosquito arrived on the neck of Manuel Vargas, a citizen of Mexico, at his home in Juarez. At 3:43 Sr. Vargas said “Ay!” and slapped at the mosquito that had bitten him, resulting in said mosquito’s immediate demise. Soon afterward, Sr. Vargas was feeling ill and went to see a doctor. He was advised that he had contracted dengue fever.
Oh, and :rolleyes:
Actually I didn’t know that. I wasn’t aware that sarcasm is prohibited. So rest your worried little mind, if a mod points that out I’ll refrain from using it in the future.
Don’t worry yourself about it, as magellan01 is wrong on this count, too. Surprising, no?
Well it has been translated since and proved that the first point some dumbshit author tried to convince people of was totally false. But you have known that for some time now and haven’t commented on the matter. I say this brings into question the authors credibility, don’t you agree? Or do you prefer to keep up the dodge?
The significant error in your statement was that, as written, it implied an ongoing an nation-wide problem when, in fact, it was a single incident in a single province that has not even been repeated.
I suppose he might have been merely cowardly, rather than xenophobic. The rules under which Christians and Jews were allowed to handle marrige issues did not include those portions of Canon Law (or equivalent guidelines from Protestant denominations) or halakhic decisions from the Talmud outside the specific guides for marriage and in cases where the extra-judicial tribunals intervened, both parties had to agree to it beforehand and also at the conclusion; it could not be imposed on a reluctanrt party. The only objections to the use of outside tribunals for the resolution of personal issues came from xenophobic misinterpretations of what was already permitted or might be permitted in the future.
I suppose it is possible that the Premier was simply afraid of losing votes and was not personally supportive of xenophobia.
I’m completely astounded!
:rolleyes:
Need a cite for that. 
I think the last glitch from the board eliminated your “kill the messenger” response to **Unregistered bull ** regarding the Poverty center and Dr. Madeleine Peiner Cosman, what they said about her is accurate and taking into account that she was on the board of the Wake Up America Foundation, which opposes illegal immigration, referring to her is as biased as one can get, and her research remains suspect because most of the cites supporting the con position are coming from her research that used dubious data from FAIR. (not to be confused with the fairness in reporting people)
From the Washington Times article:
To Sessions: :rolleyes:
What does it mean when those people legalize their situation thanks to the changes coming? Oh that is right, they are no longer illegals. But if there is a point to grant is that after all the changes those students remain illegal then yeah deciding not to help the brightest minds not to develop their full potentials and help the future of America is our choice. I do know that not helping is a choice that lands in the territory of “Penny-Wise, Pound-Foolish”
What certain things?
BTW the borders aren’t open. You don’t make “3,257 apprehensions between ports for illegal entry” or “refuse entry of 868 non-citizens at our ports of entry” a day with open borders.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/accomplish/day.xml
The US has never enforced all its laws either. It doesn’t have the resources to do so. It picks and chooses.
Just to reiterate to anyone who doesn’t click on any of the links, NOT a Medical Doctor.
At 4:02 that evening Sr. Vargas was bitten again, this time by Pepita, an Ae. Aegypti mosquito originally from Texas. An hour and a half later, flying northward, Pepita encountered a patrolling Minuteman named Joe, who asked to see her papers. Confused, Pepita bit him. Joe acted in justifiable self-defense, resulting in the mosquito’s instant death. Joe did not contract dengue fever. But as he was being treated for the self-inflicted gunshot wound he sustained defending the border from Pepita, the U.S. and the other governments of the Americas concluded an agreement to resume the wildly successful but 40-years’ dormant campaign to exterminate Ae. Aegypti. According to the WHO, “Effective Ae aegypti control, however, can be achieved by using an integrated approach that targets larval mosquitoes. This species was eliminated from most countries in tropical America during the 1950s and 1960s, effectively preventing both epidemic dengue and yellow fever. Unfortunately, these programmes were disbanded in the 1970s after success had been achieved. This change was followed by the rapid reinvasion by Ae. aegypti of most tropical American countries…” {source (PDF): http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/publications/pdf/planning_dengue.pdf } Shortly thereafter, Joe had to find another reason to fear immigration.
Because they pay for it, because many of the kids are citizens, and because keeping kids ignorant is immoral, citizen or not.
IIRC someone got wrist slapped by a mod recently for using :rolleyes: ; apparently it counts as a personal insult :eek: . Too bad; there are quite a few times I’d like to use it. 
And if I’m wrong : :smack:
I think it’s :wally that’s not allowed.
Enough with this hijack.
The “wally” ( :wally ) may not be used to address a poster in any Forum except the Pit because “putz” is a direct, name-calling insult.
Even the “wally” may be addressed to issues or persons who are not actually posting to the SDMB.
I am unaware of any other smiley being restricted to use in (or forbidden from use in) any Fora besides the Pit. (If someone has a link to such a ruling on other smileys, you may post it here, ONCE.)
Discussion of smileys is now forbidden in this thread. 
[ /Moderating ]