• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 14:29
CET 20:29
KST 04:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10
Community News
RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket13Weekly Cups (Nov 10-16): Reynor, Solar lead Zerg surge2[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation14Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada4SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA17
StarCraft 2
General
SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA Weekly Cups (Nov 10-16): Reynor, Solar lead Zerg surge RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 3 $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest 2025 RSL Offline Finals Dates + Ticket Sales!
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 501 Price of Progress Mutation # 500 Fright night Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death
Brood War
General
soO on: FanTaSy's Potential Return to StarCraft 2v2 maps which are SC2 style with teams together? Data analysis on 70 million replays What happened to TvZ on Retro? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] RO16 Tie Breaker - Group B - Sun 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO16 Tie Breaker - Group A - Sat 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Current Meta Game Theory for Starcraft How to stay on top of macro? PvZ map balance
Other Games
General Games
Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Clair Obscur - Expedition 33
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine About SC2SEA.COM
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Health Impact of Joining…
TrAiDoS
Dyadica Evangelium — Chapt…
Hildegard
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2031 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9725

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9723 9724 9725 9726 9727 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
January 19 2018 00:44 GMT
#194481
On January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange.


It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six."

But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing.

Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it)


It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about.

Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR.


If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too.

Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4866 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 00:45:36
January 19 2018 00:44 GMT
#194482
On January 19 2018 09:43 Mohdoo wrote:
So wait, why not vote for this? What's still in it that's shitty?


It's DACA neutral, but the Democrats are scared of the activists in their party to whom they (stupidly) promised DACA enshrinement when the next funding bill came up.


On January 19 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange.


It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six."

But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing.

On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it)


It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about.

Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR.


If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too.

Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused.

Changing chain migration isn't very hard, especially if we are only talking about DACA recipients and their situations.
"But, as the conservative understands it, modification of the rules should always reflect, and never impose, a change in the activities and beliefs of those who are subject to them, and should never on any occasion be so great as to destroy the ensemble."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 00:51:07
January 19 2018 00:47 GMT
#194483
On January 19 2018 09:44 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:43 Mohdoo wrote:
So wait, why not vote for this? What's still in it that's shitty?


It's DACA neutral, but the Democrats are scared of the activists in their party to whom they (stupidly) promised DACA enshrinement when the next funding bill came up.


Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:40 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:35 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

But since Trump blew up the deal he said he would sign, the democrats dont trust that it will get done. And they don’t trust this funding measure because the conservatives in the house pushed Trump to kill the deal. They don’t get to kill the Durbin deal and then offer some garbage in exchange.


It wasn't just the House that killed that horrendous compromise. Trump was being Trumpy when he said he trusted the people in the room. As even this thread knew, the deal was all Democrat wants and fig leaves for the 3 GOP amnesty lovers that were part of the "gang of six."

But sure, that destroyed all hope. Now the only option is to demand even more from Republicans while giving up nothing.

On January 19 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:37 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:34 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

do you have a citation for that? (this cr being clean, and the dems opposing it)


It's clean, it contains no DACA language. Which is the issue the Dems are up in arms about.

Yep, because how conservatives killed the deal by telling the president to shoot it down. Conservatives are never going to let DACA pass, so the Democrats aren’t going to vote for their CR.


If there is real change to security and chain migration you bet your rear they would vote for it. And they can use Trump as cover too.

Yeah, well the chain migration deal is a pipe dream. Same eithe the “merit based” system. They need to come back to reality. Or enjoy the government shut down they caused.

Changing chain migration isn't very hard, especially if we are only talking about DACA recipients and their situations.

It will never get 60 votes in the senate, so it is literally impossible. You can't poison pill a bill to the point where people will primary their senator for voting for it and then claim its their fault for the shut down.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 00:49:54
January 19 2018 00:47 GMT
#194484
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame!

Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating.

not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state.



The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws.

And the AG of CA just said this:

Show nested quote +
The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?

also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.

on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
January 19 2018 00:52 GMT
#194485
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

The justifications vary, and some get quite lengthy, but it always ends up the same. Only one side gets called obstructionists, and only one side must give up compromises. I’d say this is pretty foolish to be this transparent in partisanship, but essentially they’ve written off the voters soured by this kind of double-dealing.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15725 Posts
January 19 2018 00:53 GMT
#194486
That California bill is mind bogglingly stupid.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4866 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 01:00:50
January 19 2018 00:56 GMT
#194487
On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/RepCurbelo/status/954039426266619905


Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame!

Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating.

not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state.



The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws.

And the AG of CA just said this:

The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?

also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.

on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.


That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS."


Edit:

Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday)

note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html
"But, as the conservative understands it, modification of the rules should always reflect, and never impose, a change in the activities and beliefs of those who are subject to them, and should never on any occasion be so great as to destroy the ensemble."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 01:01:49
January 19 2018 00:59 GMT
#194488
The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen.

Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.

Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."

On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.


They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable.

On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/RepCurbelo/status/954039426266619905


Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame!

Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating.

not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state.



The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws.

And the AG of CA just said this:

The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?

also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.

on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.


That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS."


Edit: here is cory booker:

"I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday)

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html


Sounds like they have given the majority a very clear path to get their vote. Considering the leadership won't let minority bills come to the floor for debate and have excluded the Democrats from the last two major pieces of legislation, they have no other option.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4866 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 01:03:32
January 19 2018 01:01 GMT
#194489
On January 19 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:
The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen.

Show nested quote +
Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.

Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."

On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.


They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable.


Yes, I'm sure this is why the state will prosecute private employers who may wish to comply with federal law.
"But, as the conservative understands it, modification of the rules should always reflect, and never impose, a change in the activities and beliefs of those who are subject to them, and should never on any occasion be so great as to destroy the ensemble."
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18839 Posts
January 19 2018 01:03 GMT
#194490
On January 19 2018 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:
That California bill is mind bogglingly stupid.

Whether or not it ends up being wise is another matter, but it's absolutely not mind boggling given what many employers of undocumented immigrants do to their employees.

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump claims his crackdown on undocumented workers will raise wages and improve jobs for all Americans. But there’s at least one way it’s already having the opposite effect.

By ramping up deportations, the Trump administration is making immigrant workers less likely to come forward when they’ve been cheated out of wages or put in harm’s way on the job. Worker advocates and attorneys fear that Trump’s policies will ultimately give leverage to abusive employers and drive down standards for all workers in industries that rely on immigrant labor.

“There’s a lot of fear out there, and it’s driving workers further underground,” said Christopher Williams, a Chicago attorney who handles wage theft cases involving immigrants. “I honestly think it’s creating an incentive to hire more undocumented workers, because now they’re even more vulnerable to being exploited.”

The muzzling of undocumented workers has been a problem for decades. Under President Barack Obama, who carried out a record-breaking number of deportations, many workers were afraid to file wage complaints or report workplace hazards for fear that doing so would backfire on them. It is not uncommon for unscrupulous bosses to threaten to report workers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or simply fire them in retaliation.

That has provided one of the leading arguments for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to legal status: If workers are brought out of the shadows, they will be less fearful of asserting their workplace rights, helping to level the playing field between good employers and bad ones.

But undocumented workers now face what’s quickly shaping up to be the most unforgiving environment in years. As Republicans pursue a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Trump administration has broadened the criteria for who should be considered for deportation. Immigrant rights advocates and lawyers have described the uptick in enforcement in recent weeks as unprecedented.

Even in times of more relaxed enforcement, many immigrants are reluctant to put their names on formal complaints against their employers, said Antonio Vanegas, a Guatemala native. Vanegas successfully recouped back pay from his employer, a pita shop in Washington, D.C., after filing wage theft allegations in 2013 with the help of a union-backed worker group, Good Jobs Nation. As The Huffington Post reported at the time, immigration agents detained Vanegas, but he later secured a work visa as the victim of a crime.

“At first I was terrified,” Vanegas said of filing his complaint. “But once I started to know my rights … I felt empowered.” He said there’s a simple reason many exploited workers never step forward: “They have mouths to feed.”

The White House says it is focusing detainment efforts on dangerous criminals, though immigrant advocates said many people without criminal records have been picked up, too. “We’re getting them out, and that’s what I said I would do,” Trump said recently. The reports of a surge in detentions have made many undocumented immigrants too skittish to be out in public.

And that fear is already spilling onto work sites, said Sam Robles, a spokeswoman for the Workers Defense Project, a nonprofit that represents immigrant construction workers in Texas. Robles’ group has been teaching workers how to respond if immigration agents show up at work and seek to detain them.

“These are difficult conversations to have,” Robles said. “These folks already have dangerous, hard jobs. When you have an increase in raids or deportations, they are even more afraid. I’ve seen the families. They are really tired and concerned.”

A study that Robles’ group did with the University of Texas at Austin found that roughly half of construction workers in the state are undocumented, making them less likely than other workers to report abusive practices. According to the study, a construction worker dies every three days in Texas, and nearly 1 in 4 has been a victim of wage theft. Many construction workers speak little or no English and aren’t aware of their legal rights.

Many workers are even more afraid of their employers than they are of the government, and would rather swallow their lost wages than risk their jobs. Debbie Berkowitz, a former policy adviser at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said she believes injury rates are much higher in the poultry processing industry than employers report to the government. That’s because the industry’s largely immigrant workforce is understandably afraid to speak up about injuries, she said.

“This job, even though it doesn’t always put food on the table, is what prevents all these workers from really falling into complete poverty,” said Berkowitz, now a safety expert at the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers. “And these industries know that.”

If workers are even more afraid to come forward during the Trump era, she added, “It just means more workers will get hurt and companies will get away with cutting corners.”

Worker advocates are concerned that cutting corners will become easier under Trump. Career civil servants in the federal government investigate companies for violations, but political appointees atop agencies like the Labor Department set the priorities. Notably, since Trump took office, the Labor Department has stopped issuing press releases detailing wage and safety investigations.

Trump and Republican lawmakers have made clear they intend to usher in a laissez-faire business environment. The GOP-led Congress has already used an arcane maneuver to undo more than a dozen regulations issued by the Obama administration. One of those rules would have made it harder for companies to secure federal contracts after breaking labor law, and another would have made employers keep an ongoing record of workplace injuries to better identify dangers.

Combined with a crackdown on immigrants, scaling back enforcement in dangerous industries like poultry processing and construction would give employers even less to worry about, according to Berkowitz.

“Why would employers not gamble that they won’t be inspected?” she said. “Or maybe they’ll just forget that OSHA exists.”


Donald Trump’s Crackdown On Undocumented Immigrants Is Silencing Exploited Workers
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 01:06:12
January 19 2018 01:04 GMT
#194491
On January 19 2018 10:01 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:
The part they don't talk about is how ICE and deportation in general have a terrible track record for due process and have held more than a few citizens for very long times.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court. Watson, who was 23 and didn't have a high school diploma when he entered ICE custody, didn't have a lawyer of his own. So he hand-wrote a letter to immigration officers, attaching his father's naturalization certificate, and kept repeating his status to anyone who would listen.

Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years. Then it released Watson, who was from New York, in rural Alabama with no money and no explanation. Deportation proceedings continued for another year.

Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."

On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.


They deprived a citizen of rights, including his right to counsel. Then denied him damages by opposing the ruling and getting it overturned. There are plenty of reasons for states to not want to deal with ICE, including no one holds them accountable.


Yes, I'm sure this is why the state will prosecute private employers who may wish to comply with federal law.

That is a bridge to far, but I have no problem with states not complying with ICE.

Edit: farvacola raises the valid point that ICE also doesn't give a shit about bad employers abusing people, which is illegal no matter what.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 01:09:26
January 19 2018 01:07 GMT
#194492
On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/RepCurbelo/status/954039426266619905


Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame!

Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating.

not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state.



The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws.

And the AG of CA just said this:

The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?

also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.

on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.


That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS."


Edit:

Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday)

note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html

it's not tired, it's entirely justified. you have a history of bad faith arguing (though not nearly as much as some others), hence there's good reason to disbelieve you and ask for citations/info. I follow things a fair deal, but haven't heard of everything.
you have now provided them and I am satisfied; the dems should be voting for the cr (assuming it's clean), even though the only reason it's here is because of the gross irresponsibility and willful malice of the republicans.

Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4866 Posts
January 19 2018 01:09 GMT
#194493
On January 19 2018 10:07 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:56 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:47 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:33 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:30 zlefin wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:19 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/RepCurbelo/status/954039426266619905


Doesn't he know that states' rights is a dog whistle? For shame!

Meanwhile of course complying with the feds on federal immigration law is not cool therefore we need sanctuary states to prevent even private citizens or businesses from cooperating.

not sure how that point on sanctuary states makes sense given the actual legalities involved, and the typical actual case of a "sanctuary" state.



The Democrats believe that the federal government is supreme in immigration until they don't, so they then pass sanctuary laws.

And the AG of CA just said this:

The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html

do you understand why federal supremacy on immigration is generally inapplicable to the ACTUAL sanctuary laws?

also note that there's a difference between this CA bill being bad policy (which it kinda looks like it might be, at least in some ways) and it being unconstitutional.

on the other matter: you failed to actually provide a cite as asked, so i'll just assume you don' thave anything and wait for better info from other sources.


That line is so tired. Try a new tack, if it's NOT clean why don't you find out why the Democrats oppose it? Are you keeping up with what is going on or not? I don't think you will find an article that declares "THE BILL IS CLEAN" what you see are things like "DEMOCRATS OPPOSE CR THAT DOESN'T PROTECT DREAMERS."


Edit:

Cory Booker- "I will vote against a clean CR if it does not include DACA, a fix to some of the other things that are high priorities to me. Why are we kicking the can down the road?" (Tuesday)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) - "I will be voting no on the House CR because it does not include protections for Dreamers, funding for the Children's Health Insurance program and Community Health Centers, and parity between defense and domestic spending." (Tweet Thursday)

note that the CHIP objection is now moot and the "parity" of spending are typical empty words. Everyone knows what this is about.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/senate-whip-continuing-resolution-government-shutdown/index.html

it's not tired, it's entirely justified. you have a history of bad faith arguing (though not nearly as much as some others), hence there's good reason to disbelieve you and ask for citations.
you have now provided them and I am satisfied; the dems should be voting for the cr (assuming it's clean), even though the only reason it's here is because of the gross irresponsibility and willful malice of the republicans.


I'll take that I guess lol.
"But, as the conservative understands it, modification of the rules should always reflect, and never impose, a change in the activities and beliefs of those who are subject to them, and should never on any occasion be so great as to destroy the ensemble."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
January 19 2018 01:36 GMT
#194494
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to fund the government Thursday night in an attempt to avoid a government shutdown Saturday.

By a vote of 230-197, the House passed a bill to fund the government through 16 February. The legislation also extends the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip) for six years as an incentive for Democrats to support it but does not address the so-called “Dreamers”, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and are poised to lose protections from deportation in March.

Making protections permanent for Dreamers has been a top Democratic priority for funding the government. Without these provisions only six Democrats voted for the legislation.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Democrats have sufficient votes there to block the legislation. If no agreement is reached by Saturday, the federal government is poised to shut down which leave many federal workers on furlough and only “essential” functions of the government operating. The last time the government shutdown was 2013, and it lasted 16 days.

The House only reached a deal after making key concessions to conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus which included the promise of a seperate vote on increasing military funding in the coming days.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 02:17:15
January 19 2018 01:52 GMT
#194495
I'm still confused why it's obstructionist when the GOP forces a shutdown to reduce spending but when the Democrats threaten to force a shutdown to push through DACA it's a perfectly legitimate tactic and "just part of negotiation." Someone please clarify this for me.

The WSJ says the Senate requires 60 votes for a spending bill and says nothing about a filibuster. I'm not an expert here, but if they need less than 60 without a filibuster then it's at least unclear/misleading writing.
In the Senate, spending bills need at least 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles, giving Democrats the power to derail the bill. Without an immigration deal, most Senate Democrats said they were prepared to oppose the spending measure.

This would seem to imply that Democratic votes are needed.

EDIT: The post above contradicts mine, so I'll take that one's word for it.

That said, the Democrats are going filibuster a spending bill to force a shutdown? Holy shit, even I thought that they had more decency than Ted Cruz.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
January 19 2018 01:59 GMT
#194496
whether or not the democrats will filibuster remains to be seen; and will likely depend on the exact contents of the bill.
and they do have more decency than ted cruz; there's no question about that. the only question is how muhc more decency they have.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 02:03:12
January 19 2018 02:00 GMT
#194497
The GOP doesn’t let them take part in government. I don’t understand why people think the GOP can go an entire year straight up baring the democrats from crafting legislation in any way, but demand votes now to pass a spending measure without giving the democrats something. If the GOP didn’t like this game, they shouldn’t have played it for 6 years.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Aquanim
Profile Joined November 2012
Australia2849 Posts
January 19 2018 02:32 GMT
#194498
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

The way I see it there's two possible explanations for this.

(1) The Democrats get what they want, but keep wanting more and more
(2) The Republicans aren't compromising in the first place

I imagine you're trying to imply the first is dominant. Do you have any argument or evidence to convince me or anyody else of that, or is this just an argument in absentia?
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4866 Posts
January 19 2018 02:45 GMT
#194499
On January 19 2018 11:32 Aquanim wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 19 2018 09:31 Introvert wrote:
On January 19 2018 09:25 Plansix wrote:
Last I checked Americans citizens overwhelming supported DACA. Trump and the conservatives are not the be trusted to follow through on any clean deal down the line, so this is how the popular program gets put back in place.

Edit: that is what I thought. The GOP has to compromise if they want democrat’s votes.


You seem confused, this CR says nothing about DACA either way but the Democrats oppose it. A "clean" deal exactly what the Democrats want. They could fund everything for 3 more weeks while they continue to hash it out, but apparently that's bad.

I am amused though how, without fail, no matter the circumstances, year after year, you can always come around to "it's the Republicans who have to give up more."

The way I see it there's two possible explanations for this.

(1) The Democrats get what they want, but keep wanting more and more
(2) The Republicans aren't compromising in the first place

I imagine you're trying to imply the first is dominant. Do you have any argument or evidence to convince me or anyody else of that, or is this just an argument in absentia?


Are you talking about the last sentence in that post?
"But, as the conservative understands it, modification of the rules should always reflect, and never impose, a change in the activities and beliefs of those who are subject to them, and should never on any occasion be so great as to destroy the ensemble."
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-01-19 02:51:31
January 19 2018 02:50 GMT
#194500
I mean, the Republican caucus is in such disarray that guarantees from McConnell to Collins about shoring up the ACA were completely negated (alternatively she was just straight up lied to, in which case I don't know why any Dem would believe McConnell and co. if they'd lie to their own party). "We'll work on DACA within 3 weeks" is even less of a promise than Collins got.
Prev 1 9723 9724 9725 9726 9727 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
17:00
#31
RotterdaM1392
IndyStarCraft 310
SteadfastSC287
kabyraGe 174
BRAT_OK 137
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 1392
IndyStarCraft 310
SteadfastSC 287
BRAT_OK 137
Livibee 92
JuggernautJason68
UpATreeSC 30
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 26527
Calm 2831
Horang2 1773
Dewaltoss 143
firebathero 131
Backho 52
NaDa 11
Dota 2
qojqva3556
BananaSlamJamma199
Counter-Strike
fl0m5781
pashabiceps819
zeus495
allub193
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu45
Other Games
FrodaN3068
Grubby2282
Beastyqt821
ArmadaUGS143
Sick110
C9.Mang0102
Mew2King99
KnowMe79
QueenE73
Trikslyr66
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream314
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix9
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 3346
League of Legends
• Nemesis4765
• TFBlade1273
Other Games
• imaqtpie953
• WagamamaTV534
• Shiphtur282
Upcoming Events
OSC
3h 31m
Wardi Open
16h 31m
PiGosaur Cup
1d 5h
Replay Cast
1d 13h
Wardi Open
1d 16h
OSC
1d 17h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
OSC
3 days
[ Show More ]
LAN Event
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

SOOP Univ League 2025
RSL Revival: Season 3
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
SLON Tour Season 2
META Madness #9
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.