crossing the border illegally is not a crime?

[nelson]

Wow, and I thought Janet Napolitano's Canada border gaffe (http://www.forum-political.com/forum/showthread.php?t=827) was bad.

Over the weekend, our Secretary of Homeland Security was being interviewed by CNN's John King. While talking about Sheriff Joe, Janet Napolitano said the following:

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

In fact, crossing the border illegally is a federal criminal offense.

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1325, crossing the border illegally is a crime–a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second and subsequent offenses.

Being in the USA without permission is a civil offense; maybe that's what she was thinking of. But if anyone should know how to carefully make this distinction, our Secretary of Homeland Security should!

No surprise there is now a FireNapolitano.com (http://www.firenapolitano.com). :gun:

[The G]

Must be you forgot this one ?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YzhJXQLxxZs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YzhJXQLxxZs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[The G]

It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.I think she answered it right here :)

[The G]

I have about 6 more with your boy and his opinion on illegals.

[right$pecial]

Is "G" short for GW?

[nelson]

LOL right$! G just reads "Bush" in every thread topic. True, he's a bit obsessive, but we'll cut him slack since he got his glasses through a government health care plan. :rofl

It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

The context was, "crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well."

In a couple short weeks, we can already see that our Secretary of Homeland Security, who's job includes securing our borders, needs more time to review a) where the 911 terrorists came from, and b) what is a crime and what isn't.

[The G]

Read the topic of this thread and watch the video again :)

[The G]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6SUMpPdd0E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z6SUMpPdd0E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[The G]

Rather funny we are talking about what has or hasn't been done with illegals in the past 100 days. All seem to forgot what was done on this topic over the last 8 YEARS.

NOTHING

Need some video please let me know.

[Remphoto]

Rather funny we are talking about what has or hasn't been done with illegals in the past 100 days. All seem to forgot what was done on this topic over the last 8 YEARS.

NOTHING

Need some video please let me know.

You're just like your Messiah, G -- still running against GWB. I think it is some kind of sick obsession. Well, the election is over, the Messiah is President and it is HIS responsibility now. Trying to drag GWB into every argument and to keep looking backward is really doing our country a disservice. It also shows a shallowness of ideas.. 2010 is coming and looking bleaker for the Messiah's team every day. :)

[The G]

Not running against anyone. I set here and read all this dribble thats been going on for years and nothing was said. Now Bo gets elected and all of a sudden its a problem....


what do you call this ?


Hint!!! use my favorite word :D

[The G]

George W Bush wasn't concerned about securing our borders he was trying to get them a free pass.

One more for good measure

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/41pA9oOcuOE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/41pA9oOcuOE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[right$pecial]

I don't care if GW spent his time in office licking glue from the back of postage stamps and huffing paint; that does not make it right for the current administration to do the same. The more "youtubed" GW posts I see the more and more likely I am to simply skim over them as they have no bearing on what happens today. Unless I am mistaken the man is no longer President and has no power to influence us further in a good or a bad way.

[Remphoto]

Bho cowtows to third rate dictators. He apologized for America to our enemies. Gwb did not. As much as I disagreed with gwb on immigration and other issues, bho sbows no class by criticizing him. Bho is a Chicago political hack who would be still working for acorn if not for the color of his skin.

[The G]

pissing moaning wining and crying... damn

[MYCAR47562]

actually g you are the one that keeps pissing moaning and crying.

only difference is that it's over what gwb didn't do.... but wait obama hasn't done it either

[Remphoto]

pissing moaning wining and crying... damn

I agree, your pissing moaning whining and crying are not really very pleasant. But cheer up - you will soon be part of the socialistic state your side has longed for.:D

[The G]

I agree, your pissing moaning whining and crying are not really very pleasant. But cheer up - you will soon be part of the socialistic state your side has longed for.:D

regardless on how many time Faux News talks about socialism, it won't happen in the USA.

More dribble from the right.

[The G]

actually g you are the one that keeps pissing moaning and crying.

only difference is that it's over what gwb didn't do.... but wait obama hasn't done it eitherthats not even close to being true.

[MYCAR47562]

thats not even close to being true.

while i can't watch the video's for normal reason's. how isn't it true?

[The G]

that I'm pissing and moaning

[MYCAR47562]

that I'm pissing and moaning

well i hope your at least pissing if not you need to go to the doctor cause it won't be long till your moaning

[The G]

I'm fine:)

[MYCAR47562]

i bet

[Remphoto]

regardless on how many time Faux News talks about socialism, it won't happen in the USA.

More dribble from the right.


Socialism has already begun. By exchanging Preferred Stock in banks for Common Stock, government now has voting rights (i.e., control) of major banks. This is definitely a socialistic concept.

Dick is spot on with this analysis:

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

[The G]

No one forced Banks to take tarp money and it seems very clear they can't straighten out the bank by them selfs. Once the TARP money is repaid the banks will own all the stocks. Americans owning stock in these banks is to make sure we get our money back, it has nothing to do with socializing banks.

Nice try but you know that BS. :D

[nelson]

No one forced Banks to take tarp moneyActually, the government forced many banks to take TARP money.

Once the TARP money is repaid the banks will own all the stocks.You mean once the government determines whether or not banks will be permitted to repay the TARP money.

Americans owning stock in these banks is to make sure we get our money back, it has nothing to do with socializing banks. Tread carefully; you are actually making a case for tax revenues to be invested in private enterprise.

Whether one likes the term "socialism" or not, we will now add banking to the long list of businesses nationalized by the United States government. Economists don't care which administration promotes socialism to what degree; they just want it to stop.

[Remphoto]

Actually, the government forced many banks to take TARP money.

You mean once the government determines whether or not banks will be permitted to repay the TARP money.

Tread carefully; you are actually making a case for tax revenues to be invested in private enterprise.

Whether one likes the term "socialism" or not, we can now add banking to the long list of businesses nationalized by the United States government. Economists don't care which administration this socialization process takes place under; they just want it to stop.

Well said and quite true. As previously mentioned, when the banks took the TARP money there were no strings like caps on executive pay, restrictions on repayment, etc. These were added retroactively after the fact by Geithner. No wonder he has zero credibility with the bankers and many others, too. (Not to mention he is a freaking tax cheat).

[synseer]

Actually, the government forced many banks to take TARP money.

You mean once the government determines whether or not banks will be permitted to repay the TARP money.

Tread carefully; you are actually making a case for tax revenues to be invested in private enterprise.

Whether one likes the term "socialism" or not, we will now add banking to the long list of businesses nationalized by the United States government. Economists don't care which administration promotes socialism to what degree; they just want it to stop.

Nice break out Nelson..well said!

[The G]

Actually, the government forced many banks to take TARP money.

You mean once the government determines whether or not banks will be permitted to repay the TARP money.

Tread carefully; you are actually making a case for tax revenues to be invested in private enterprise.

Whether one likes the term "socialism" or not, we will now add banking to the long list of businesses nationalized by the United States government. Economists don't care which administration promotes socialism to what degree; they just want it to stop.

I'm calling BS :)

[The G]

Rem was your bank forced to take money ?

[Remphoto]

No, but we have 17% equity capital -- 3 times the required amount. About 500 or 6000 banks have taken TARP -- mostly the large ones that had adequate but not excess capital reserves. Banks that had less than adequate capital were not eligible for TARP as they were likely to fail. National City Bank is a good example -- they were in trouble and didn't get TARP. PNC used its TARP funds to acquire NCB. Of course a few banks ineligible for TARP got it anyway -- i.e., the failing Minority Bank in Barney's district (with the company Porsche) got it.

[The G]

Heres a application for the forced TARP Funds.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/applicationguidelines.pdf

[The G]

No, but we have 17% equity capital -- 3 times the required amount. About 500 or 6000 banks have taken TARP -- mostly the large ones that had adequate but not excess capital reserves. Banks that had less than adequate capital were not eligible for TARP as they were likely to fail. National City Bank is a good example -- they were in trouble and didn't get TARP. PNC used its TARP funds to acquire NCB. Of course a few banks ineligible for TARP got it anyway -- i.e., the failing Minority Bank in Barney's district (with the company Porsche) got it.

Thank you Sir

[gtrman66]

Hey Rem, you got a branch in Dallas? I could be convinced to leave Chase.

[Remphoto]

Hey Rem, you got a branch in Dallas? I could be convinced to leave Chase.

No, but we have lots of people leaving Chase in our towns and bringing us money!:D

[The G]

Bump in case the link was missed. :coffee

Heres a application for the forced TARP Funds.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/release...guidelines.pdf

[Remphoto]

Bump in case the link was missed. :coffee

Heres a application for the forced TARP Funds.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/release...guidelines.pdf

I think there is something wrong with your link -- not working.

That said, I wouldn't put much stock in any applications. The regulators are not hesitant to have "convesations" and to "make suggestions" to Banks if there is something they want them to do.

[The G]

It worked yesterday

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/applicationguidelines.pdf

This link works as of 1:52 PM

It reads the same addy I wonder what happened ? :coffee

[Remphoto]

Working now -- don't see anything in there particularly unususal -- what's your point?

[The G]

Working now -- don't see anything in there particularly unususal -- what's your point?
Just wondering why the old links don't work.

[right$pecial]

Doesn't matter, it is a crime and by her own words she does not understand the law. Try crossing the border illegally in other countries and see where it lands you.

[TaxmanHog]

Hey Rem, you got a branch in Dallas? I could be convinced to leave Chase.

Funny you mention Chase.....when I was negotiating the purchase of my new truck a couple of weeks ago, the Finance Manager put out a few bid-offers to the banks the primarily deal with...including Chase..eventually, Citizens Bank had the best offer at the time & I went with them.

On Thursday I got a "Sorry We Can't accept the terms proposed Letter " from Chase, even after the Manufacture rebates, Trade-in & Dealer concessions I was financing only 56% of the MSRP, they made an "Alternate Terms Offer", they wanted me to bring an additional $5000 to close a loan with them, Talk about tight-asses.

I'm no dead-beat, I pay my debt's :gun: & I have a reliable income stream. :coffee?????