Came back home from a business trip yesterday and had to peel my husband
off the ceiling. I wonder if anyone else out there has gotten this in
the mail ...

He got an envelope from the "Selective Service' yesterday.
It informed him that was has been assigned a selective service number
and had a brochure in it touting the pluses of the U.S. Military and a
list of local enlistment offices.

I explained to him how there was
once a thing in this country called the"draft" and all that it entailed.
It took me a second to figure out how the "military" got his name and
social security number but then I remembered and called the information
number on the packet to confirm. The representative on the line told us
that as a male between the ages of 18 & something else, he's
automatically registered by the State Department when he signs up for a
particular type of school loan or when he gets a drivers license or
state id. (he got an id in Nov).

My husband, still sweating, yelled
into the speaker phone, told him he's only been in America for 6 months
and shakily asked the guy if this meant that they would be needing him
to go to Iraq anytime soon. (-: He explained that no, it wouldn't be
anytime soon, but should a time come where there was a national
emergency and he was needed in the military, now that he's registered,
they'd have the right to call him up!

Very interesting - amazing how
startlingly efficient the govt can be at times.

If only they could get
crackin' on the aos, petitions and greencards!

(-:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Came back home from a business trip yesterday and had to peel my husband
off the ceiling. I wonder if anyone else out there has gotten this in
the mail ...

He got an envelope from the "Selective Service' yesterday.
It informed him that was has been assigned a selective service number
and had a brochure in it touting the pluses of the U.S. Military and a
list of local enlistment offices.

I explained to him how there was
once a thing in this country called the"draft" and all that it entailed.
It took me a second to figure out how the "military" got his name and
social security number but then I remembered and called the information
number on the packet to confirm. The representative on the line told us
that as a male between the ages of 18 & something else, he's
automatically registered by the State Department when he signs up for a
particular type of school loan or when he gets a drivers license or
state id. (he got an id in Nov).

My husband, still sweating, yelled
into the speaker phone, told him he's only been in America for 6 months
and shakily asked the guy if this meant that they would be needing him
to go to Iraq anytime soon. (-: He explained that no, it wouldn't be
anytime soon, but should a time come where there was a national
emergency and he was needed in the military, now that he's registered,
they'd have the right to call him up!

Very interesting - amazing how
startlingly efficient the govt can be at times.

If only they could get
crackin' on the aos, petitions and greencards!

(-:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Came back home from a
business trip yesterday and had to peel my husband off the ceiling. I
wonder if anyone else out there has gotten this in the mail ... He
got an envelope from the "Selective Service' yesterday. It informed him
that was has been assigned a selective service number and had a brochure
in it touting the pluses of the U.S. Military and a list of local
enlistment offices. I explained to him how there was once a thing
in this country called the"draft" and all that it entailed. It took me
a second to figure out how the "military" got his name and social
security number but then I remembered and called the information number
on the packet to confirm. The representative on the line told us that as
a male between the ages of 18 & something else, he's automatically
registered by the State Department when he signs up for a particular
type of school loan or when he gets a drivers license or state id. (he
got an id in Nov). My husband, still sweating, yelled into the
speaker phone, told him he's only been in America for 6 months and
shakily asked the guy if this meant that they would be needing him to go
to Iraq anytime soon. (-: He explained that no, it wouldn't be anytime
soon, but should a time come where there was a national emergency and he
was needed in the military, now that he's registered, they'd have the
right to call him up! Very interesting - amazing how startlingly
efficient the govt can be at times. If only they could get crackin'
on the aos, petitions and greencards! (-:

Ouch Janadeen,
I am so sorry girlie. I have never heard of such a thing!!, Can someone
explain this a little bit more??, I hope he doesnt have to go to Irak!!

Best of Luck to the 2 of you!:)
((Janadeen)) and a hug!!!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Came back home from a
business trip yesterday and had to peel my husband off the ceiling. I
wonder if anyone else out there has gotten this in the mail ... He
got an envelope from the "Selective Service' yesterday. It informed him
that was has been assigned a selective service number and had a brochure
in it touting the pluses of the U.S. Military and a list of local
enlistment offices. I explained to him how there was once a thing
in this country called the"draft" and all that it entailed. It took me
a second to figure out how the "military" got his name and social
security number but then I remembered and called the information number
on the packet to confirm. The representative on the line told us that as
a male between the ages of 18 & something else, he's automatically
registered by the State Department when he signs up for a particular
type of school loan or when he gets a drivers license or state id. (he
got an id in Nov). My husband, still sweating, yelled into the
speaker phone, told him he's only been in America for 6 months and
shakily asked the guy if this meant that they would be needing him to go
to Iraq anytime soon. (-: He explained that no, it wouldn't be anytime
soon, but should a time come where there was a national emergency and he
was needed in the military, now that he's registered, they'd have the
right to call him up! Very interesting - amazing how startlingly
efficient the govt can be at times. If only they could get crackin'
on the aos, petitions and greencards! (-:

Ouch Janadeen,
I am so sorry girlie. I have never heard of such a thing!!, Can someone
explain this a little bit more??, I hope he doesnt have to go to Irak!!

Best of Luck to the 2 of you!:)
((Janadeen)) and a hug!!!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens
living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register
with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is
registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military.
In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence
determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would
be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military
before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted
into the Armed Forces.

http://www.sss.gov/

Hopefully they
are going to change it this year to
include Females...I promote equal
rights for women


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens
living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register
with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is
registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military.
In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence
determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would
be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military
before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted
into the Armed Forces.

http://www.sss.gov/

Hopefully they
are going to change it this year to
include Females...I promote equal
rights for women


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

My husband is a Navy recruiter and as far as I know you cannot sign up
with any branches of the armed forces unless you have a green card.
But
if you are a permanent resident, and you are a male between the ages of
18 and 26, you are required by law to register with selective service. I
read that even illegal aliens and refugees are required to register.
Which doesn't make any sense to me personally...
But despite someone is
registred that doesn't mean he will be actually induced into the
military. Even if they start drafting people, and he gets 'unlucky',
they evaluate everyone physically, psychologically and morally. I don't
think that someone who just moved to the US and may still have strong
ties to their home country would be fit to protect the interest of the
US in times of crisis.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

My husband is a Navy recruiter and as far as I know you cannot sign up
with any branches of the armed forces unless you have a green card.
But
if you are a permanent resident, and you are a male between the ages of
18 and 26, you are required by law to register with selective service. I
read that even illegal aliens and refugees are required to register.
Which doesn't make any sense to me personally...
But despite someone is
registred that doesn't mean he will be actually induced into the
military. Even if they start drafting people, and he gets 'unlucky',
they evaluate everyone physically, psychologically and morally. I don't
think that someone who just moved to the US and may still have strong
ties to their home country would be fit to protect the interest of the
US in times of crisis.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

There are a lot of rumors going around that the Bush (sic)
administration is preparing for the possibility of a renewed draft.


This is a very, very possible scenario. First of all, despite what
Rummy says, there is currently a 30,000 (temporay) increase in the Amry
size. More importantly, the National Guard and Reserve are facing
unprecedentedly low level of re-enlistments and new enlistments.

The
new soldiers are going to have to come from somewhere. So to all of you
who are thinking of voting for Bush, consider your relatives and friends
between the ages of 18 and 26!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

There are a lot of rumors going around that the Bush (sic)
administration is preparing for the possibility of a renewed draft.


This is a very, very possible scenario. First of all, despite what
Rummy says, there is currently a 30,000 (temporay) increase in the Amry
size. More importantly, the National Guard and Reserve are facing
unprecedentedly low level of re-enlistments and new enlistments.

The
new soldiers are going to have to come from somewhere. So to all of you
who are thinking of voting for Bush, consider your relatives and friends
between the ages of 18 and 26!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark There are a lot of rumors
going around that the Bush (sic) administration is preparing for the
possibility of a renewed draft. This is a very, very possible
scenario. First of all, despite what Rummy says, there is currently a
30,000 (temporay) increase in the Amry size. More importantly, the
National Guard and Reserve are facing unprecedentedly low level of re-
enlistments and new enlistments. The new soldiers are going to have
to come from somewhere. So to all of you who are thinking of voting for
Bush, consider your relatives and friends between the ages of 18 and 26!

Or decide to be a conchie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark There are a lot of rumors
going around that the Bush (sic) administration is preparing for the
possibility of a renewed draft. This is a very, very possible
scenario. First of all, despite what Rummy says, there is currently a
30,000 (temporay) increase in the Amry size. More importantly, the
National Guard and Reserve are facing unprecedentedly low level of re-
enlistments and new enlistments. The new soldiers are going to have
to come from somewhere. So to all of you who are thinking of voting for
Bush, consider your relatives and friends between the ages of 18 and 26!

Or decide to be a conchie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Came back home from a
business trip yesterday and had to peel my husband off the ceiling. I
wonder if anyone else out there has gotten this in the mail ... He
got an envelope from the "Selective Service' yesterday. It informed him
that was has been assigned a selective service number and had a brochure
in it touting the pluses of the U.S. Military and a list of local
enlistment offices. I explained to him how there was once a thing
in this country called the"draft" and all that it entailed. It took me
a second to figure out how the "military" got his name and social
security number but then I remembered and called the information number
on the packet to confirm. The representative on the line told us that as
a male between the ages of 18 & something else, he's automatically
registered by the State Department when he signs up for a particular
type of school loan or when he gets a drivers license or state id. (he
got an id in Nov). My husband, still sweating, yelled into the
speaker phone, told him he's only been in America for 6 months and
shakily asked the guy if this meant that they would be needing him to go
to Iraq anytime soon. (-: He explained that no, it wouldn't be anytime
soon, but should a time come where there was a national emergency and he
was needed in the military, now that he's registered, they'd have the
right to call him up! Very interesting - amazing how startlingly
efficient the govt can be at times. If only they could get crackin'
on the aos, petitions and greencards! (-:


Hi:

What in
blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is. Is he between the
ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident of the United
States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He WANTED to be a US
resident.

And NOW he *****es about those three salient facts?

I have
no sympathy for him. I, too, registered for Selective Service when I
turned 18. In fact, we had actual "Draft Boards" [mine was #83 in North
Hollywood, but it moved to Pacoima when it got fire-bombed]. You would
get "classified" and because L.A. High Schools had mid-year graduations
in those days, the Selective Service guys always had me 6 months beyond
what they considered "normal progress" kept changing me from "2-S"
student to "1-A" "induction is imminent" classficiation and I would
appeal get back my "2-S".

At that time, not only did we an actual
draft, many draftees were trained as "11-B" grunts and were sent
overseas to be shot at by "Charlie." The names of many of those grunts
are on a wall in D.C. on the Mall.

The draft was ended 31 years ago.


BTW, that little letter from Selective Service will help facilitate
his naturalization if he choses to become a US citizen down the road.
Or perhaps he doesn't care.

End of rant.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Marjeta My husband is a Navy
recruiter and as far as I know you cannot sign up with any branches of
the armed forces unless you have a green card. But if you are a
permanent resident, and you are a male between the ages of 18 and 26,
you are required by law to register with selective service. I read that
even illegal aliens and refugees are required to register. Which doesn't
make any sense to me personally... But despite someone is registred
that doesn't mean he will be actually induced into the military. Even if
they start drafting people, and he gets 'unlucky', they evaluate
everyone physically, psychologically and morally. I don't think that
someone who just moved to the US and may still have strong ties to their
home country would be fit to protect the interest of the US in times of
crisis.

Hi:

The Brits invented a term many years ago:
"cannon fodder." If they feel a need for the draft, they'll draft if
you are breathing and can walk and shoot.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Marjeta My husband is a Navy
recruiter and as far as I know you cannot sign up with any branches of
the armed forces unless you have a green card. But if you are a
permanent resident, and you are a male between the ages of 18 and 26,
you are required by law to register with selective service. I read that
even illegal aliens and refugees are required to register. Which doesn't
make any sense to me personally... But despite someone is registred
that doesn't mean he will be actually induced into the military. Even if
they start drafting people, and he gets 'unlucky', they evaluate
everyone physically, psychologically and morally. I don't think that
someone who just moved to the US and may still have strong ties to their
home country would be fit to protect the interest of the US in times of
crisis.

Hi:

The Brits invented a term many years ago:
"cannon fodder." If they feel a need for the draft, they'll draft if
you are breathing and can walk and shoot.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

My opinion is, if you can't even vote in the country you're supposed to
be fighting for then you shouldn't have to fight for them.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

My opinion is, if you can't even vote in the country you're supposed to
be fighting for then you shouldn't have to fight for them.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Sorry, the person is a PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the
vast majority of benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come
here. So if the nation is in danger, why should they be exempt.

FYI,
if they are drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They
would not be considered a draft-dodger.



Originally posted
by Steffi
My opinion is, if you can't even vote in the country
you're supposed to be fighting for then you shouldn't have to fight for
them.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Sorry, the person is a PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the
vast majority of benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come
here. So if the nation is in danger, why should they be exempt.

FYI,
if they are drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They
would not be considered a draft-dodger.



Originally posted
by Steffi
My opinion is, if you can't even vote in the country
you're supposed to be fighting for then you shouldn't have to fight for
them.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

As DCMark already mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating
the draft is going to be very real very soon..........say late November
2004 after the election.

BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off
the deep end and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for
her............not to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the
USA. We wouldn't even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the
WhiteHouse had decided to play King of the World.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

As DCMark already mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating
the draft is going to be very real very soon..........say late November
2004 after the election.

BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off
the deep end and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for
her............not to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the
USA. We wouldn't even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the
WhiteHouse had decided to play King of the World.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt. FYI, if they are
drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They would not be
considered a draft-dodger.

Not the voting.. which is to me
the most important thing:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt. FYI, if they are
drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They would not be
considered a draft-dodger.

Not the voting.. which is to me
the most important thing:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

By your logic then only people who choose to vote should be eligible for
the draft.

So if this nation is in danger, what do you suggest that
foreign PERMANENT RESIDENTS do to defed the nation?




Originally posted by Hypertweeky
Not the voting..
which is to me the most important thing:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

By your logic then only people who choose to vote should be eligible for
the draft.

So if this nation is in danger, what do you suggest that
foreign PERMANENT RESIDENTS do to defed the nation?




Originally posted by Hypertweeky
Not the voting..
which is to me the most important thing:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I agree with what you said about Bush. However, I don't think it
matters why her man came to the US. He is here and that entails
responsibilities.

I think the draft for everyone would be ideal,
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans,
not just poor Americans will be impacted by the criminal in the White
house.


Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election. BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off the deep end
and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for her............not
to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the USA. We wouldn't
even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the WhiteHouse had
decided to play King of the World.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I agree with what you said about Bush. However, I don't think it
matters why her man came to the US. He is here and that entails
responsibilities.

I think the draft for everyone would be ideal,
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans,
not just poor Americans will be impacted by the criminal in the White
house.


Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election. BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off the deep end
and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for her............not
to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the USA. We wouldn't
even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the WhiteHouse had
decided to play King of the World.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi My opinion is, if you can't
even vote in the country you're supposed to be fighting for then you
shouldn't have to fight for them.

Hi:

Ah, "deja vu all over
again."

That argument is one of the primary reasons the voting age was
lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with my 21st
birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is fair?].


Also, aliens in the military during wartime become immediately
eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic Training, I went
through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting your clothing
issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting shots, getting
eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite clearly that
on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be processed
for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army worked to
make sure you were a citizen.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi My opinion is, if you can't
even vote in the country you're supposed to be fighting for then you
shouldn't have to fight for them.

Hi:

Ah, "deja vu all over
again."

That argument is one of the primary reasons the voting age was
lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with my 21st
birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is fair?].


Also, aliens in the military during wartime become immediately
eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic Training, I went
through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting your clothing
issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting shots, getting
eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite clearly that
on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be processed
for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army worked to
make sure you were a citizen.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt. FYI, if they are
drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They would not be
considered a draft-dodger.

Hi:

Actually, as an alien, he has
an absolute right to REFUSE to join the military. However, should he do
so, he then becomes PERMANENTLY ineligible for naturalization. Also, if
that person ever needs to immigrate, they are barred from immigration.
If the person has a green card, they should be intimately familiar with
the provision of 101(a)(13) defintion of "admission" if they want to
travel foreign.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt. FYI, if they are
drafted they can leave the country with no problems. They would not be
considered a draft-dodger.

Hi:

Actually, as an alien, he has
an absolute right to REFUSE to join the military. However, should he do
so, he then becomes PERMANENTLY ineligible for naturalization. Also, if
that person ever needs to immigrate, they are barred from immigration.
If the person has a green card, they should be intimately familiar with
the provision of 101(a)(13) defintion of "admission" if they want to
travel foreign.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: Ah, "deja vu
all over again." That argument is one of the primary reasons the
voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with
my 21st birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is
fair?]. Also, aliens in the military during wartime become
immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic
Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting
your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting
shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite
clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be
processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army
worked to make sure you were a citizen.


Ok, my question is
this (as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and
whether PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a
fact)... but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here
since last February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never
heard about it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I
should be signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am
granted citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more
readily available?!

Cheers,
Sean


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: Ah, "deja vu
all over again." That argument is one of the primary reasons the
voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with
my 21st birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is
fair?]. Also, aliens in the military during wartime become
immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic
Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting
your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting
shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite
clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be
processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army
worked to make sure you were a citizen.


Ok, my question is
this (as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and
whether PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a
fact)... but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here
since last February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never
heard about it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I
should be signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am
granted citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more
readily available?!

Cheers,
Sean


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election. BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off the deep end
and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for her............not
to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the USA. We wouldn't
even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the WhiteHouse had
decided to play King of the World. Leslie

Hi:

BTW,
someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay
income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also
part of the deal.

The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election. BTW Folinskyinla, there's no need to go off the deep end
and jump all over her or her DH. Her DH came here for her............not
to wallow in the glory of all that is good about the USA. We wouldn't
even be discussing this matter if the dumbass in the WhiteHouse had
decided to play King of the World. Leslie

Hi:

BTW,
someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay
income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also
part of the deal.

The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: The Brits
invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need
for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and
shoot.

Believe me, I know what that term means...
I have had
direct contact with families of soldiers that are as of now on the
battlefields of Iraq. And yes, it is a battlefield. So it breaks my
heart when these same people still blindly support this war, even though
their sons are only that, cannon fodder.
And I wouldn't be surprised if
they sent just anyone available to get killed in a foreign country the
way things are looking right now. But I sure wouldn't be proud of it the
way you are, as if this is the right thing to do.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: The Brits
invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need
for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and
shoot.

Believe me, I know what that term means...
I have had
direct contact with families of soldiers that are as of now on the
battlefields of Iraq. And yes, it is a battlefield. So it breaks my
heart when these same people still blindly support this war, even though
their sons are only that, cannon fodder.
And I wouldn't be surprised if
they sent just anyone available to get killed in a foreign country the
way things are looking right now. But I sure wouldn't be proud of it the
way you are, as if this is the right thing to do.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by blenky16 Ok, my question is this
(as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and whether
PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a fact)...
but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here since last
February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never heard about
it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I should be
signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am granted
citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more readily
available?! Cheers, Sean

Hi:

Since you were 26 when
you came, you were not required to register. If you came in before
then, the sin is generally forgiven when you turn 26 unless it was a
deliberate failure.

In the immigrant visa end of things, you are
registered as part of the process. Supposedly CIS is also supposed to
do it during AOS, but I have a feeling they don't.

If you didn't know,
I doubt they would prosecute you. Do remember that there is no active
conscription and what there used to be ended 31 years ago.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by blenky16 Ok, my question is this
(as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and whether
PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a fact)...
but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here since last
February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never heard about
it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I should be
signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am granted
citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more readily
available?! Cheers, Sean

Hi:

Since you were 26 when
you came, you were not required to register. If you came in before
then, the sin is generally forgiven when you turn 26 unless it was a
deliberate failure.

In the immigrant visa end of things, you are
registered as part of the process. Supposedly CIS is also supposed to
do it during AOS, but I have a feeling they don't.

If you didn't know,
I doubt they would prosecute you. Do remember that there is no active
conscription and what there used to be ended 31 years ago.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Marjeta Believe me, I know what
that term means... I have had direct contact with families of
soldiers that are as of now on the battlefields of Iraq. And yes, it is
a battlefield. So it breaks my heart when these same people still
blindly support this war, even though their sons are only that, cannon
fodder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they sent just anyone
available to get killed in a foreign country the way things are looking
right now. But I sure wouldn't be proud of it the way you are, as if
this is the right thing to do.

Hi:

Who said I'm "proud" of
"it?" Being a member of society involves both rights and obligations.


BTW, an excert from ]http://users.efortress.com/doc-
rock/1960.html[/url] on dead musicians:

-----------------

Phil Pill -
Died 7-5-1968 in Vietnam - Killed by enemy fire while touring army bases
( Rock ) Played piano - Was a member of Brandi Perry And The Bubble
Machine (They did versions of, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" and "San
Francisco").

Kurt Willis - Died 7-5-1968 in Vietnam - Killed by enemy
fire while touring army bases ( Rock ) Drummer - Was a member of Brandi
Perry And The Bubble Machine (They did versions 0f, "We Gotta Get Out Of
This Place" and "San Francisco").

---------------------

Phil was a
high school friend. He was NOT in the military but went over on a "USO"
tour [like Bob Hope would]. He didn't have to be thre. His name is
not on the Wall in DC because he was a civilian.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Marjeta Believe me, I know what
that term means... I have had direct contact with families of
soldiers that are as of now on the battlefields of Iraq. And yes, it is
a battlefield. So it breaks my heart when these same people still
blindly support this war, even though their sons are only that, cannon
fodder. And I wouldn't be surprised if they sent just anyone
available to get killed in a foreign country the way things are looking
right now. But I sure wouldn't be proud of it the way you are, as if
this is the right thing to do.

Hi:

Who said I'm "proud" of
"it?" Being a member of society involves both rights and obligations.


BTW, an excert from ]http://users.efortress.com/doc-
rock/1960.html[/url] on dead musicians:

-----------------

Phil Pill -
Died 7-5-1968 in Vietnam - Killed by enemy fire while touring army bases
( Rock ) Played piano - Was a member of Brandi Perry And The Bubble
Machine (They did versions of, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" and "San
Francisco").

Kurt Willis - Died 7-5-1968 in Vietnam - Killed by enemy
fire while touring army bases ( Rock ) Drummer - Was a member of Brandi
Perry And The Bubble Machine (They did versions 0f, "We Gotta Get Out Of
This Place" and "San Francisco").

---------------------

Phil was a
high school friend. He was NOT in the military but went over on a "USO"
tour [like Bob Hope would]. He didn't have to be thre. His name is
not on the Wall in DC because he was a civilian.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla - "be nice".

Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset
about?

I was not saying that my husband was upset over anything.
When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just making
note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail. His
native country has no such system and he's never heard of "the draft".
It's all strange to him. He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy
and shared data bases and the like - it was a mystery to him as to how
these people got his name. That's all I was saying. (btw - I really
think it was mean & unecessary to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't
and I never said he was)

A person coming to this country for the first
time, such a thing can sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary.
Now that he gets the whole picture, there's no issue - there never was
- just a little confusion on his part.

And for the record - he has no
problems with having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru
this K1 experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this
process has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this
was another matter that needed to be acted upon asap.

Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas.

Deep breath
everybody. (-:


Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi: What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is.
Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident
of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He
WANTED to be a US resident. And NOW he *****es about those three
salient facts? I have no sympathy for him. I, too, registered for
Selective Service when I turned 18. In fact, we had actual "Draft
Boards" [mine was #83 in North Hollywood, but it moved to Pacoima when
it got fire-bombed]. You would get "classified" and because L.A. High
Schools had mid-year graduations in those days, the Selective Service
guys always had me 6 months beyond what they considered "normal
progress" kept changing me from "2-S" student to "1-A" "induction is
imminent" classficiation and I would appeal get back my "2-S". At
that time, not only did we an actual draft, many draftees were trained
as "11-B" grunts and were sent overseas to be shot at by "Charlie."
The names of many of those grunts are on a wall in D.C. on the Mall.
The draft was ended 31 years ago. BTW, that little letter from
Selective Service will help facilitate his naturalization if he choses
to become a US citizen down the road. Or perhaps he doesn't care.

End of rant.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla - "be nice".

Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset
about?

I was not saying that my husband was upset over anything.
When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just making
note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail. His
native country has no such system and he's never heard of "the draft".
It's all strange to him. He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy
and shared data bases and the like - it was a mystery to him as to how
these people got his name. That's all I was saying. (btw - I really
think it was mean & unecessary to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't
and I never said he was)

A person coming to this country for the first
time, such a thing can sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary.
Now that he gets the whole picture, there's no issue - there never was
- just a little confusion on his part.

And for the record - he has no
problems with having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru
this K1 experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this
process has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this
was another matter that needed to be acted upon asap.

Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas.

Deep breath
everybody. (-:


Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi: What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is.
Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident
of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He
WANTED to be a US resident. And NOW he *****es about those three
salient facts? I have no sympathy for him. I, too, registered for
Selective Service when I turned 18. In fact, we had actual "Draft
Boards" [mine was #83 in North Hollywood, but it moved to Pacoima when
it got fire-bombed]. You would get "classified" and because L.A. High
Schools had mid-year graduations in those days, the Selective Service
guys always had me 6 months beyond what they considered "normal
progress" kept changing me from "2-S" student to "1-A" "induction is
imminent" classficiation and I would appeal get back my "2-S". At
that time, not only did we an actual draft, many draftees were trained
as "11-B" grunts and were sent overseas to be shot at by "Charlie."
The names of many of those grunts are on a wall in D.C. on the Mall.
The draft was ended 31 years ago. BTW, that little letter from
Selective Service will help facilitate his naturalization if he choses
to become a US citizen down the road. Or perhaps he doesn't care.

End of rant.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1220715.1075920594@britishexpats.com... What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is. Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He WANTED to be a US resident. And NOW he *****es about those three salient facts?

Some 34 years ago, my family immigrated to the United States from southeast
Asia. My father, 30 years old, thought he was safe from service in the
Vietnam war. Alas, although the regular draft age cutoff was (I'm guessing)
26, the age cutoff for physicians was 35. He received his notice to *report
for duty* (not just some measy registration form) within 2 months of our
family's arrival in the U.S.

Fortunately for our family, the legislation authorizing the extended draft
for physicians expired before he had to report.

Paulgani

"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1220715.1075920594@britishexpats.com... What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is. Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He WANTED to be a US resident. And NOW he *****es about those three salient facts?

Some 34 years ago, my family immigrated to the United States from southeast
Asia. My father, 30 years old, thought he was safe from service in the
Vietnam war. Alas, although the regular draft age cutoff was (I'm guessing)
26, the age cutoff for physicians was 35. He received his notice to *report
for duty* (not just some measy registration form) within 2 months of our
family's arrival in the U.S.

Fortunately for our family, the legislation authorizing the extended draft
for physicians expired before he had to report.

Paulgani

Originally posted by janadeen Folinskyinla - "be nice".
Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset about? I was
not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned
having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised
he was at the notice he got in the mail. His native country has no such
system and he's never heard of "the draft". It's all strange to him.
He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy and shared data bases and
the like - it was a mystery to him as to how these people got his name.
That's all I was saying. (btw - I really think it was mean & unecessary
to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't and I never said he was) A
person coming to this country for the first time, such a thing can
sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary. Now that he gets the
whole picture, there's no issue - there never was - just a little
confusion on his part. And for the record - he has no problems with
having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru this K1
experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this process
has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this was
another matter that needed to be acted upon asap. Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas. Deep
breath everybody. (-:

Hi:

My apologies. You pushed one of
my personal buttons. I know it was unintentional, but you pushed it
nonetheless. For those of us of a certain age, the Vietnam war shaped
our view of things.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Folinskyinla - "be nice".
Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset about? I was
not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned
having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised
he was at the notice he got in the mail. His native country has no such
system and he's never heard of "the draft". It's all strange to him.
He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy and shared data bases and
the like - it was a mystery to him as to how these people got his name.
That's all I was saying. (btw - I really think it was mean & unecessary
to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't and I never said he was) A
person coming to this country for the first time, such a thing can
sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary. Now that he gets the
whole picture, there's no issue - there never was - just a little
confusion on his part. And for the record - he has no problems with
having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru this K1
experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this process
has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this was
another matter that needed to be acted upon asap. Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas. Deep
breath everybody. (-:

Hi:

My apologies. You pushed one of
my personal buttons. I know it was unintentional, but you pushed it
nonetheless. For those of us of a certain age, the Vietnam war shaped
our view of things.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I hear ya - I'm *totally* with ya on that view.

Take care & thanks.



Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi:
My
apologies. You pushed one of my personal buttons. I know it was
unintentional, but you pushed it nonetheless. For those of us of a
certain age, the Vietnam war shaped our view of things.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I hear ya - I'm *totally* with ya on that view.

Take care & thanks.



Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi:
My
apologies. You pushed one of my personal buttons. I know it was
unintentional, but you pushed it nonetheless. For those of us of a
certain age, the Vietnam war shaped our view of things.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: BTW,
someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay
income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also
part of the deal. The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.



Huh? Are you talking about my DH? If so, Why should he pay
income taxes if he did't even make the required minimum income to do so?
No offense Folksy but you are in a pissy mood today.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: BTW,
someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay
income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also
part of the deal. The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.



Huh? Are you talking about my DH? If so, Why should he pay
income taxes if he did't even make the required minimum income to do so?
No offense Folksy but you are in a pissy mood today.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

No he is not, you are being wildly oversensitive.

I seriously doubt he
knows the financial situation of your spouse. He was talking in
general.

And regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income
taxes at any rate.


Originally posted by Scout Huh?
Are you talking about my DH? If so, Why should he pay income taxes if he
did't even make the required minimum income to do so? No offense Folksy
but you are in a pissy mood today.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

No he is not, you are being wildly oversensitive.

I seriously doubt he
knows the financial situation of your spouse. He was talking in
general.

And regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income
taxes at any rate.


Originally posted by Scout Huh?
Are you talking about my DH? If so, Why should he pay income taxes if he
did't even make the required minimum income to do so? No offense Folksy
but you are in a pissy mood today.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Hi Janadeen,

It's also important that people understand the image that
the United States projects to the rest of the world. Most countries do
not have an enormous military. Many countries do not even have police
officers that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of
aggression and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing. We as
Americans have become somewhat desensitized to it all because of our
long history of war and the consistent escalation of violent crime. I
think the U.S. lost it's innocence a long time ago. Maybe your husband
is just afraid of getting shot. It doesn't sound that appealing to me
either. Your husband did what he was required to do by responding to
the letter. Selfish would have been if he ducked out of his obligation.
How he feels about it is his own business and his right. You owe no
apologies for expressing that reaction here. I'm sure many boys that
got their draft notices before being sent to Viet Nam to die, had to be
"peeled off the ceiling" as well.

The prospect of dying in the
*defense* of your country and it's freedoms, whether you are an
immigrant or not, is frightening enough. Nobody can tell me that the
men that died in World War II weren't afraid, I'm sure they were
terrified. There are good men that are dying right now in Iraq, over
the pack of lies that our wild-eyed cowboy president force fed us. At
this point in history, I would not want to be eligible for the draft
either. I would register IF I was required to by law, but I wouldn't
pretend to be thrilled about it. I can also tell you, IMO if we were
actually fighting for our freedom, there would be a lot more voluntary
enlisting than what we are seeing. Nobody actually "believes" in this
war. There are simply some that support it for their own highly
questionable reasons.


Originally posted by janadeen
Folinskyinla - "be nice". Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so
upset about? I was not saying that my husband was upset over
anything. When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just
making note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail.
His native country has no such system and he's never heard of "the
draft". It's all strange to him. He's not at all accustomed to vast
bureacracy and shared data bases and the like - it was a mystery to him
as to how these people got his name. That's all I was saying. (btw - I
really think it was mean & unecessary to ask why he was "*****ing" - he
wasn't and I never said he was) A person coming to this country for
the first time, such a thing can sometimes seem really strange or a bit
scary. Now that he gets the whole picture, there's no issue - there
never was - just a little confusion on his part. And for the record
- he has no problems with having to serve his newly adopted country. In
going thru this K1 experience, everything we've gotten in the mail
concerning this process has required some action or reaction - he simply
thought this was another matter that needed to be acted upon asap.
Scout - thanks for having my back - I thought I was the only one who
felt Folinskyinla had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative
way. I was just sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient
the govt is with the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the
right. Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in
such a manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas.

Deep breath everybody. (-:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Hi Janadeen,

It's also important that people understand the image that
the United States projects to the rest of the world. Most countries do
not have an enormous military. Many countries do not even have police
officers that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of
aggression and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing. We as
Americans have become somewhat desensitized to it all because of our
long history of war and the consistent escalation of violent crime. I
think the U.S. lost it's innocence a long time ago. Maybe your husband
is just afraid of getting shot. It doesn't sound that appealing to me
either. Your husband did what he was required to do by responding to
the letter. Selfish would have been if he ducked out of his obligation.
How he feels about it is his own business and his right. You owe no
apologies for expressing that reaction here. I'm sure many boys that
got their draft notices before being sent to Viet Nam to die, had to be
"peeled off the ceiling" as well.

The prospect of dying in the
*defense* of your country and it's freedoms, whether you are an
immigrant or not, is frightening enough. Nobody can tell me that the
men that died in World War II weren't afraid, I'm sure they were
terrified. There are good men that are dying right now in Iraq, over
the pack of lies that our wild-eyed cowboy president force fed us. At
this point in history, I would not want to be eligible for the draft
either. I would register IF I was required to by law, but I wouldn't
pretend to be thrilled about it. I can also tell you, IMO if we were
actually fighting for our freedom, there would be a lot more voluntary
enlisting than what we are seeing. Nobody actually "believes" in this
war. There are simply some that support it for their own highly
questionable reasons.


Originally posted by janadeen
Folinskyinla - "be nice". Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so
upset about? I was not saying that my husband was upset over
anything. When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just
making note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail.
His native country has no such system and he's never heard of "the
draft". It's all strange to him. He's not at all accustomed to vast
bureacracy and shared data bases and the like - it was a mystery to him
as to how these people got his name. That's all I was saying. (btw - I
really think it was mean & unecessary to ask why he was "*****ing" - he
wasn't and I never said he was) A person coming to this country for
the first time, such a thing can sometimes seem really strange or a bit
scary. Now that he gets the whole picture, there's no issue - there
never was - just a little confusion on his part. And for the record
- he has no problems with having to serve his newly adopted country. In
going thru this K1 experience, everything we've gotten in the mail
concerning this process has required some action or reaction - he simply
thought this was another matter that needed to be acted upon asap.
Scout - thanks for having my back - I thought I was the only one who
felt Folinskyinla had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative
way. I was just sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient
the govt is with the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the
right. Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in
such a manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas.

Deep breath everybody. (-:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark No he is not, you are being
wildly oversensitive. I seriously doubt he knows the financial
situation of your spouse. He was talking in general. And
regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income taxes at any
rate.


Are you sure? I just got off the phone with my
accountant. He seems to think as did I, that since my husband only made
a little over $200 in US Interest Income here last year and had losses
in the UK he may indeed not have to file a return here in the US. He's
checking with another accountant more experinced in International
matters before confirming that. BTW, the IRS couldn't give me a
straight answer this morning and neither could anyone here so how do you
know?

If Folksy was not addressing issues of my spouse (I have a post
going with a question about taxes btw) and speaking in general then why
would he put my previous post in quotes and make the charges he did?
Just really curious to me. If it wasn't a personal attack then I
apologize but it came across that way, especially in light of the only
other subject I have posted on lately is regarding income taxes.

BTW, I
grew up during the Vietnam war too and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive
rights to haveing buttons pushed over it as an excuse for his rude
behaviour earlier when he jumped all over the OP.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark No he is not, you are being
wildly oversensitive. I seriously doubt he knows the financial
situation of your spouse. He was talking in general. And
regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income taxes at any
rate.


Are you sure? I just got off the phone with my
accountant. He seems to think as did I, that since my husband only made
a little over $200 in US Interest Income here last year and had losses
in the UK he may indeed not have to file a return here in the US. He's
checking with another accountant more experinced in International
matters before confirming that. BTW, the IRS couldn't give me a
straight answer this morning and neither could anyone here so how do you
know?

If Folksy was not addressing issues of my spouse (I have a post
going with a question about taxes btw) and speaking in general then why
would he put my previous post in quotes and make the charges he did?
Just really curious to me. If it wasn't a personal attack then I
apologize but it came across that way, especially in light of the only
other subject I have posted on lately is regarding income taxes.

BTW, I
grew up during the Vietnam war too and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive
rights to haveing buttons pushed over it as an excuse for his rude
behaviour earlier when he jumped all over the OP.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: The Brits
invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need
for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and
shoot.

Reminds me of the "IQ Test" used by the Napoleonic
Army which involved a hoop being placed on the head of an individual.
If the hoop slipped down past their ears they were not recruited.

The
hoop became progressively smaller and smaller with the passing of the
years......

Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and
under 50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband loves to
harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3 of the constitution. He
wants to know when the government plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun
and ammo?).

Although, in the war of 1812 the concept of a state
militia (in this case NY if I am not mistaken) didn't work wonderfully
well. They repelled the British but then refused to pursue them outside
of the state :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: The Brits
invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need
for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and
shoot.

Reminds me of the "IQ Test" used by the Napoleonic
Army which involved a hoop being placed on the head of an individual.
If the hoop slipped down past their ears they were not recruited.

The
hoop became progressively smaller and smaller with the passing of the
years......

Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and
under 50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband loves to
harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3 of the constitution. He
wants to know when the government plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun
and ammo?).

Although, in the war of 1812 the concept of a state
militia (in this case NY if I am not mistaken) didn't work wonderfully
well. They repelled the British but then refused to pursue them outside
of the state :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Actually I am not sure. Follow your accountant.

I assumed you menat
he made only $2000 in wages this year or something like that....



Originally posted by Scout Are you sure? I just got
off the phone with my accountant. He seems to think as did I, that
since my husband only made a little over $200 in US Interest Income
here last year and had losses in the UK he may indeed not have to file
a return here in the US. He's checking with another accountant more
experinced in International matters before confirming that. BTW, the
IRS couldn't give me a straight answer this morning and neither could
anyone here so how do you know? If Folksy was not addressing
issues of my spouse (I have a post going with a question about taxes
btw) and speaking in general then why would he put my previous post in
quotes and make the charges he did? Just really curious to me. If it
wasn't a personal attack then I apologize but it came across that way,
especially in light of the only other subject I have posted on lately
is regarding income taxes. BTW, I grew up during the Vietnam war
too and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive rights to haveing buttons pushed
over it as an excuse for his rude behaviour earlier when he jumped all
over the OP.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Actually I am not sure. Follow your accountant.

I assumed you menat
he made only $2000 in wages this year or something like that....



Originally posted by Scout Are you sure? I just got
off the phone with my accountant. He seems to think as did I, that
since my husband only made a little over $200 in US Interest Income
here last year and had losses in the UK he may indeed not have to file
a return here in the US. He's checking with another accountant more
experinced in International matters before confirming that. BTW, the
IRS couldn't give me a straight answer this morning and neither could
anyone here so how do you know? If Folksy was not addressing
issues of my spouse (I have a post going with a question about taxes
btw) and speaking in general then why would he put my previous post in
quotes and make the charges he did? Just really curious to me. If it
wasn't a personal attack then I apologize but it came across that way,
especially in light of the only other subject I have posted on lately
is regarding income taxes. BTW, I grew up during the Vietnam war
too and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive rights to haveing buttons pushed
over it as an excuse for his rude behaviour earlier when he jumped all
over the OP.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Folinskyinla - "be nice".
Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset about? I was
not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned
having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised
he was at the notice he got in the mail. His native country has no such
system and he's never heard of "the draft". It's all strange to him.
He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy and shared data bases and
the like - it was a mystery to him as to how these people got his name.
That's all I was saying. (btw - I really think it was mean & unecessary
to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't and I never said he was) A
person coming to this country for the first time, such a thing can
sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary. Now that he gets the
whole picture, there's no issue - there never was - just a little
confusion on his part. And for the record - he has no problems with
having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru this K1
experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this process
has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this was
another matter that needed to be acted upon asap. Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas. Deep
breath everybody. (-:

Ok, I have to chime in here, as a
Veteran (although not in wartime) . I know you didn't mean to offend
anyone and I'm sure your fiance was just wondering what it was about,
which I understand. I'm sure my Fiance would have the same reaction
probably. :)

I think people just have to be careful and understand that
there are MANY Vietnam Vets and other Vets out there who were treated so
badly by their fellow citizens for serving their country and this I
think, is why Folinsky reacted the way he did, which us understandable.
For what it's worth I think anyone coming to this country has to expect
that they may need to fight for this country as well. To fight for the
very Freedom this country gives to them. I also think our troops in
Iraq need our support and our "THANKS" for fighting for us and
protecting our borders. I know many will disagree with me here, but
when a soldier enlists, he/she fully expects that when called upon, they
will do their job and also feel appreciated for doing their job.

Ok,
that's all I'm going to say -- deep breath everyone :)

Angela


--
Angela (Georgia) &amp; William (Peru)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by janadeen Folinskyinla - "be nice".
Jeesh! What in "blazes" are *you* so upset about? I was
not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned
having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised
he was at the notice he got in the mail. His native country has no such
system and he's never heard of "the draft". It's all strange to him.
He's not at all accustomed to vast bureacracy and shared data bases and
the like - it was a mystery to him as to how these people got his name.
That's all I was saying. (btw - I really think it was mean & unecessary
to ask why he was "*****ing" - he wasn't and I never said he was) A
person coming to this country for the first time, such a thing can
sometimes seem really strange or a bit scary. Now that he gets the
whole picture, there's no issue - there never was - just a little
confusion on his part. And for the record - he has no problems with
having to serve his newly adopted country. In going thru this K1
experience, everything we've gotten in the mail concerning this process
has required some action or reaction - he simply thought this was
another matter that needed to be acted upon asap. Scout - thanks
for having my back - I thought I was the only one who felt Folinskyinla
had no need to to jump all over me in such a negative way. I was just
sharing an experience - MAINLY TO SHOW HOW efficient the govt is with
the left hand but can be oh so *** backwards with the right.
Personally, I think it's great tthat they register everyone in such a
manner. I wish they could be as expedient in other areas. Deep
breath everybody. (-:

Ok, I have to chime in here, as a
Veteran (although not in wartime) . I know you didn't mean to offend
anyone and I'm sure your fiance was just wondering what it was about,
which I understand. I'm sure my Fiance would have the same reaction
probably. :)

I think people just have to be careful and understand that
there are MANY Vietnam Vets and other Vets out there who were treated so
badly by their fellow citizens for serving their country and this I
think, is why Folinsky reacted the way he did, which us understandable.
For what it's worth I think anyone coming to this country has to expect
that they may need to fight for this country as well. To fight for the
very Freedom this country gives to them. I also think our troops in
Iraq need our support and our "THANKS" for fighting for us and
protecting our borders. I know many will disagree with me here, but
when a soldier enlists, he/she fully expects that when called upon, they
will do their job and also feel appreciated for doing their job.

Ok,
that's all I'm going to say -- deep breath everyone :)

Angela


--
Angela (Georgia) &amp; William (Peru)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla wrote:
BTW, someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also part of the deal. The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.

You are't required to be a LPR to pay income tax.
That only extends your reporting of income from outside the US.
Even non PR's/non USC's have to report US income.

Folinskyinla wrote:
BTW, someshould mention to him that as an LPR, he is also OBLIGATED to pay income taxes. Even if he came here to be with her -- taxes are also part of the deal. The "gentleman" is exceedingly selfish IMHO.

You are't required to be a LPR to pay income tax.
That only extends your reporting of income from outside the US.
Even non PR's/non USC's have to report US income.

Folinskyinla wrote:
The Brits invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and shoot.

Are you saying there will be no more 4-F's?

Folinskyinla wrote:
The Brits invented a term many years ago: "cannon fodder." If they feel a need for the draft, they'll draft if you are breathing and can walk and shoot.

Are you saying there will be no more 4-F's?

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt.
I'm sorry, but
in my personal opinion this still doesn't justify a non-citizen going to
war. I mean, you can't vote the person you feel represents your views
into office, you can't even serve on a jury, but you can die for your
country? ...sorry, not "your" country, because as said you aren't
a citizen.

By the way, Scout said her husband made $200 in US interest
income, so perhaps that means from stock?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Sorry, the person is a
PERMANENT RESIDENT here. They are enjoying the vast majority of
benefits of citizenship. They are not forced to come here. So if the
nation is in danger, why should they be exempt.
I'm sorry, but
in my personal opinion this still doesn't justify a non-citizen going to
war. I mean, you can't vote the person you feel represents your views
into office, you can't even serve on a jury, but you can die for your
country? ...sorry, not "your" country, because as said you aren't
a citizen.

By the way, Scout said her husband made $200 in US interest
income, so perhaps that means from stock?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by WiAnSiempre I also think our
troops in Iraq need our support and our "THANKS" for fighting for us
and protecting our borders. I know many will disagree with me here,
but when a soldier enlists, he/she fully expects that when called upon,
they will do their job and also feel appreciated for doing their job.
Ok, that's all I'm going to say -- deep breath everyone :)
Angela

It appears to me that the *soldiers* definitely
have the support of the majority. I hope as a nation we learned a
lesson from Viet Nam. I would spit on anybody that spit on a soldier
returning from Iraq. I also realize that soldiers expect to be called
upon, and in most cases they are not be the ones that are complaining
about this war.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by WiAnSiempre I also think our
troops in Iraq need our support and our "THANKS" for fighting for us
and protecting our borders. I know many will disagree with me here,
but when a soldier enlists, he/she fully expects that when called upon,
they will do their job and also feel appreciated for doing their job.
Ok, that's all I'm going to say -- deep breath everyone :)
Angela

It appears to me that the *soldiers* definitely
have the support of the majority. I hope as a nation we learned a
lesson from Viet Nam. I would spit on anybody that spit on a soldier
returning from Iraq. I also realize that soldiers expect to be called
upon, and in most cases they are not be the ones that are complaining
about this war.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: Ah, "deja vu
all over again." That argument is one of the primary reasons the
voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with
my 21st birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is
fair?]. Also, aliens in the military during wartime become
immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic
Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting
your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting
shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite
clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be
processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army
worked to make sure you were a citizen.


Yes Sir This
sentence was the prelude to every argument from a teenager fresh from
the halls of high school who did not want to go to war in Viet Nam.


Believe quite a few American citizens migrated north to make Canada
their home at that time And from what my husband tells me quite few
Canadian came south to join the American service to fight.

What is that
other saying about History Repeating Itself?

Rete


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla Hi: Ah, "deja vu
all over again." That argument is one of the primary reasons the
voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. [This happened concurrently with
my 21st birthday and I was in the Army at the time -- who said life is
fair?]. Also, aliens in the military during wartime become
immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic
Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting
your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting
shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite
clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be
processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army
worked to make sure you were a citizen.


Yes Sir This
sentence was the prelude to every argument from a teenager fresh from
the halls of high school who did not want to go to war in Viet Nam.


Believe quite a few American citizens migrated north to make Canada
their home at that time And from what my husband tells me quite few
Canadian came south to join the American service to fight.

What is that
other saying about History Repeating Itself?

Rete


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I think I'm leaning towards MarDae's opinions here. If we were fighting
this war in Iraq to protect our freedoms and our borders, our way of
life, I'd be one of the first to grab a firearm. There would be plenty
of volunteers for the military if this was the case.

However, this war
is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out of power, but have we truly
helped this country in any other way? I'd say not. Most of us, if we
were truthful, do not believe in this war, and that's why a lot of folks
most likely do not volunteer. But I support the guys and gals over
there, as they are just doing their jobs and what they volunteered for -
as that's the right thing to do.

Where is this information stating the
draft is going to be reinstated? I've heard no such information on the
news or elsewhere. And a draft wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't had
military down-sizing in the last several years. Our armies would be
plenty big enough, but that's too late now.

Obviously judging from the
reactions of some, this is a very touchy subject, but I do not feel that
a new immigrant should be forced into fighting. Some did not come here
to "enjoy the freedoms," they simply came here to be with their other
half. The freedoms are just a side benefit. I was not aware that our
gov't laws state that an immigrant basically has no choice but to fight,
if they ever want to return home to visit family. A very unfair law in
my opinion.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I think I'm leaning towards MarDae's opinions here. If we were fighting
this war in Iraq to protect our freedoms and our borders, our way of
life, I'd be one of the first to grab a firearm. There would be plenty
of volunteers for the military if this was the case.

However, this war
is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out of power, but have we truly
helped this country in any other way? I'd say not. Most of us, if we
were truthful, do not believe in this war, and that's why a lot of folks
most likely do not volunteer. But I support the guys and gals over
there, as they are just doing their jobs and what they volunteered for -
as that's the right thing to do.

Where is this information stating the
draft is going to be reinstated? I've heard no such information on the
news or elsewhere. And a draft wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't had
military down-sizing in the last several years. Our armies would be
plenty big enough, but that's too late now.

Obviously judging from the
reactions of some, this is a very touchy subject, but I do not feel that
a new immigrant should be forced into fighting. Some did not come here
to "enjoy the freedoms," they simply came here to be with their other
half. The freedoms are just a side benefit. I was not aware that our
gov't laws state that an immigrant basically has no choice but to fight,
if they ever want to return home to visit family. A very unfair law in
my opinion.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi I'm sorry, but in my
personal opinion this still doesn't justify a non-citizen going to war.
I mean, you can't vote the person you feel represents your views into
office, you can't even serve on a jury, but you can die for your
country? ...sorry, not "your" country, because as said you
aren't a citizen. By the way, Scout said her husband made
$200 in US interest income, so perhaps that means from stock?



We are all entitled to our opinions. Fortunately for you, if your
new husband shares your views, you and he can leave the US and go back
to his country to live. But then, what happens if his country needs
men to fight as well? Is there another country you two might like to
live in?

Rete


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi I'm sorry, but in my
personal opinion this still doesn't justify a non-citizen going to war.
I mean, you can't vote the person you feel represents your views into
office, you can't even serve on a jury, but you can die for your
country? ...sorry, not "your" country, because as said you
aren't a citizen. By the way, Scout said her husband made
$200 in US interest income, so perhaps that means from stock?



We are all entitled to our opinions. Fortunately for you, if your
new husband shares your views, you and he can leave the US and go back
to his country to live. But then, what happens if his country needs
men to fight as well? Is there another country you two might like to
live in?

Rete


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Curious why it would make a different what it was $200 or $2,000.
Unless you want to file separately, he would have to file jointly with
you and then his interest would be considered part of the joint income
for tax purposes. It would definitely mean a higher standard deductible
for your return and that $200, hopefully, won't put you into a higher
tax bracket.

Rete


Originally posted by Scout Are you
sure? I just got off the phone with my accountant. He seems to think as
did I, that since my husband only made a little over $200 in US Interest
Income here last year and had losses in the UK he may indeed not have to
file a return here in the US. He's checking with another accountant more
experinced in International matters before confirming that. BTW, the
IRS couldn't give me a straight answer this morning and neither could
anyone here so how do you know? If Folksy was not addressing
issues of my spouse (I have a post going with a question about taxes
btw) and speaking in general then why would he put my previous post in
quotes and make the charges he did? Just really curious to me. If it
wasn't a personal attack then I apologize but it came across that way,
especially in light of the only other subject I have posted on lately is
regarding income taxes. BTW, I grew up during the Vietnam war too
and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive rights to haveing buttons pushed over
it as an excuse for his rude behaviour earlier when he jumped all over
the OP.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Curious why it would make a different what it was $200 or $2,000.
Unless you want to file separately, he would have to file jointly with
you and then his interest would be considered part of the joint income
for tax purposes. It would definitely mean a higher standard deductible
for your return and that $200, hopefully, won't put you into a higher
tax bracket.

Rete


Originally posted by Scout Are you
sure? I just got off the phone with my accountant. He seems to think as
did I, that since my husband only made a little over $200 in US Interest
Income here last year and had losses in the UK he may indeed not have to
file a return here in the US. He's checking with another accountant more
experinced in International matters before confirming that. BTW, the
IRS couldn't give me a straight answer this morning and neither could
anyone here so how do you know? If Folksy was not addressing
issues of my spouse (I have a post going with a question about taxes
btw) and speaking in general then why would he put my previous post in
quotes and make the charges he did? Just really curious to me. If it
wasn't a personal attack then I apologize but it came across that way,
especially in light of the only other subject I have posted on lately is
regarding income taxes. BTW, I grew up during the Vietnam war too
and Folksy doesn't hold exclusive rights to haveing buttons pushed over
it as an excuse for his rude behaviour earlier when he jumped all over
the OP.
Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla That argument is one
of the primary reasons the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.

So why didn't they lower the drinking age with it?


Originally posted by Rete What is that other saying
about History Repeating Itself?
"Why of course the people don't
want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering,
Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes trial




Originally posted by Rete We are all entitled to
our opinions. Fortunately for you, if your new husband shares your
views, you and he can leave the US and go back to his country to live.
But then, what happens if his country needs men to fight as well? Is
there another country you two might like to live in?
Thankfully
my husband and I have the same political views (we probably wouldn't get
along as well if we didn't, haha). My husband is actually the American
citizen, so I guess he'd be abandoning his country if he were asked to
go to war and leave. Hopefully it won't come to a draft. If a draft
comes to go to Iraq to fight then Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for
a cause he believes in!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla That argument is one
of the primary reasons the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.

So why didn't they lower the drinking age with it?


Originally posted by Rete What is that other saying
about History Repeating Itself?
"Why of course the people don't
want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering,
Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes trial




Originally posted by Rete We are all entitled to
our opinions. Fortunately for you, if your new husband shares your
views, you and he can leave the US and go back to his country to live.
But then, what happens if his country needs men to fight as well? Is
there another country you two might like to live in?
Thankfully
my husband and I have the same political views (we probably wouldn't get
along as well if we didn't, haha). My husband is actually the American
citizen, so I guess he'd be abandoning his country if he were asked to
go to war and leave. Hopefully it won't come to a draft. If a draft
comes to go to Iraq to fight then Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for
a cause he believes in!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi "Why of course the
people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or
a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes
trial

WOW. I've never seen that before. Steffi, you
just blew my mind.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi "Why of course the
people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or
a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war crimes
trial

WOW. I've never seen that before. Steffi, you
just blew my mind.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 WOW. I've never seen
that before. Steffi, you just blew my mind.
Thank you. :D

Someone just showed it to me today and I've probably already told 5
other people about it since then because of it's meaning to me. :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 WOW. I've never seen
that before. Steffi, you just blew my mind.
Thank you. :D

Someone just showed it to me today and I've probably already told 5
other people about it since then because of it's meaning to me. :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Steffi,

Originally posted by Steffi So why didn't they
lower the drinking age with it?

Drinking age is controlled by
the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting age controlled
by the level of government for the position or issue being voted on; in
some localities non-citizens can vote on certain things in that
locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-old drinking
age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time controlling
their drinking and driving than do older folks, since they're doing both
for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with those 21 and over,
18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot of people and the
states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up to the fact and
raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New Jersey I lost a
number of friends during high school from taking trips across the state
line into New York.

Originally posted by Steffi "Why
of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But,
after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war
crimes trial

Good one Steffi. Very good. Whatever Bush's
agenda I don't think it approaches that of Goering and his comrades at
the head of the 3rd Reich, but your point is an excellent one.


Originally posted by Steffi Thankfully my husband
and I have the same political views (we probably wouldn't get along as
well if we didn't, haha). My husband is actually the American citizen,
so I guess he'd be abandoning his country if he were asked to go to war
and leave. Hopefully it won't come to a draft. If a draft comes to go to
Iraq to fight then Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he
believes in!

Would you like to re-phrase that last sentence?


Regards, JEff


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Steffi,

Originally posted by Steffi So why didn't they
lower the drinking age with it?

Drinking age is controlled by
the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting age controlled
by the level of government for the position or issue being voted on; in
some localities non-citizens can vote on certain things in that
locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-old drinking
age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time controlling
their drinking and driving than do older folks, since they're doing both
for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with those 21 and over,
18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot of people and the
states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up to the fact and
raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New Jersey I lost a
number of friends during high school from taking trips across the state
line into New York.

Originally posted by Steffi "Why
of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But,
after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi officer, during his Nuremberg war
crimes trial

Good one Steffi. Very good. Whatever Bush's
agenda I don't think it approaches that of Goering and his comrades at
the head of the 3rd Reich, but your point is an excellent one.


Originally posted by Steffi Thankfully my husband
and I have the same political views (we probably wouldn't get along as
well if we didn't, haha). My husband is actually the American citizen,
so I guess he'd be abandoning his country if he were asked to go to war
and leave. Hopefully it won't come to a draft. If a draft comes to go to
Iraq to fight then Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he
believes in!

Would you like to re-phrase that last sentence?


Regards, JEff


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy Drinking age is
controlled by the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting
age controlled by the level of government for the position or issue
being voted on; in some localities non-citizens can vote on certain
things in that locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-
old drinking age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time
controlling their drinking and driving than do older folks, since
they're doing both for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with
those 21 and over, 18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot
of people and the states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up
to the fact and raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New
Jersey I lost a number of friends during high school from taking trips
across the state line into New York.
Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?



Originally posted by jeffreyhy Would you like to re-
phrase that last sentence?
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.
*L* I hate to be getting all deep into my husband and my political
belief's, but what I meant to say was: Patrick (and myself) opposed this
war very much. From day one he didn't agree with it. If he were made to
fight in it he would be fighting in a war that he protested from day
one.
Does that explain it a little better? I think my grandfather summed
up what my husband and I also believe in: rather 10 years of debate than
one day of war. :)

- Your "hippy" ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy Drinking age is
controlled by the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting
age controlled by the level of government for the position or issue
being voted on; in some localities non-citizens can vote on certain
things in that locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-
old drinking age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time
controlling their drinking and driving than do older folks, since
they're doing both for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with
those 21 and over, 18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot
of people and the states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up
to the fact and raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New
Jersey I lost a number of friends during high school from taking trips
across the state line into New York.
Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?



Originally posted by jeffreyhy Would you like to re-
phrase that last sentence?
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.
*L* I hate to be getting all deep into my husband and my political
belief's, but what I meant to say was: Patrick (and myself) opposed this
war very much. From day one he didn't agree with it. If he were made to
fight in it he would be fighting in a war that he protested from day
one.
Does that explain it a little better? I think my grandfather summed
up what my husband and I also believe in: rather 10 years of debate than
one day of war. :)

- Your "hippy" ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark By your logic then only
people who choose to vote should be eligible for the draft. So
if this nation is in danger, what do you suggest that foreign
PERMANENT RESIDENTS do to defed the nation?

Do you really
wanna know??:D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark By your logic then only
people who choose to vote should be eligible for the draft. So
if this nation is in danger, what do you suggest that foreign
PERMANENT RESIDENTS do to defed the nation?

Do you really
wanna know??:D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?


Can they?

Originally posted by Steffi Sorry if that
was a bit confusing. *L* I hate to be getting all deep into my husband
and my political belief's, but what I meant to say was: Patrick (and
myself) opposed this war very much. From day one he didn't agree with
it. If he were made to fight in it he would be fighting in a war that he
protested from day one. Does that explain it a little better? I think
my grandfather summed up what my husband and I also believe in: rather
10 years of debate than one day of war. :) - Your "hippy" ;)


I wasn't asking you to explain your husband's political
beliefs, I was wondering if you really intended to write that "Patrick
definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he believes in". Some, perhaps
many, people won't fight for a cause that they don't believe in, but
most people will fight for a cause that they believe in.

Regards, JEff


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?


Can they?

Originally posted by Steffi Sorry if that
was a bit confusing. *L* I hate to be getting all deep into my husband
and my political belief's, but what I meant to say was: Patrick (and
myself) opposed this war very much. From day one he didn't agree with
it. If he were made to fight in it he would be fighting in a war that he
protested from day one. Does that explain it a little better? I think
my grandfather summed up what my husband and I also believe in: rather
10 years of debate than one day of war. :) - Your "hippy" ;)


I wasn't asking you to explain your husband's political
beliefs, I was wondering if you really intended to write that "Patrick
definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he believes in". Some, perhaps
many, people won't fight for a cause that they don't believe in, but
most people will fight for a cause that they believe in.

Regards, JEff


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?


Steffi,

Believe me, we were all drinking at those ages in America
too. :D I think in America it is so common for teenagers to have a
drivers license and their own cars - therein lies the problem - Drunks
don't kill people, cars do.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Hmm, I didn't realize the
drinking age was actually up to the states. So why do you think, say,
German's can handle drinking at age 16? And Brits at age 18?


Steffi,

Believe me, we were all drinking at those ages in America
too. :D I think in America it is so common for teenagers to have a
drivers license and their own cars - therein lies the problem - Drunks
don't kill people, cars do.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Steffi, Believe me,
we were all drinking at those ages in America too. :D I think in
America it is so common for teenagers to have a drivers license and
their own cars - therein lies the problem - Drunks don't kill people,
cars do.

The drinking age in Spain is 18 but the very first
time I got plastered I was 13:p:p


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Leslie66 Steffi, Believe me,
we were all drinking at those ages in America too. :D I think in
America it is so common for teenagers to have a drivers license and
their own cars - therein lies the problem - Drunks don't kill people,
cars do.

The drinking age in Spain is 18 but the very first
time I got plastered I was 13:p:p


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

tweeky,

But did you then proceed to stumble out the door, into a car,
and boogey on down the boulevard?

Regards, JEff

Originally
posted by Hypertweeky
The drinking age in Spain is 18 but the very
first time I got plastered I was 13:p:p


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

tweeky,

But did you then proceed to stumble out the door, into a car,
and boogey on down the boulevard?

Regards, JEff

Originally
posted by Hypertweeky
The drinking age in Spain is 18 but the very
first time I got plastered I was 13:p:p


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy I wasn't asking you to
explain your husband's political beliefs, I was wondering if you really
intended to write that "Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he
believes in". Some, perhaps many, people won't fight for a cause that
they don't believe in, but most people will fight for a cause that they
believe in.
*L* You got me there! I guess I messed that one
up, huh.


Originally posted by Leslie66 Believe me, we
were all drinking at those ages in America too. I think in America it
is so common for teenagers to have a drivers license and their own cars
- therein lies the problem - Drunks don't kill people, cars do.

Hmmm, perhaps you're right...maybe that does have something to do with
it. I just know there don't seem to be as many concerns about it there.



Originally posted by Hypertweeky The drinking age in
Spain is 18 but the very first time I got plastered I was 13.

Is it really 18? For some reason I thought it was 16 also. At least
clubs let me in to drink when I was 16...maybe they just weren't
supposed to. ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy I wasn't asking you to
explain your husband's political beliefs, I was wondering if you really
intended to write that "Patrick definitely wouldn't fight for a cause he
believes in". Some, perhaps many, people won't fight for a cause that
they don't believe in, but most people will fight for a cause that they
believe in.
*L* You got me there! I guess I messed that one
up, huh.


Originally posted by Leslie66 Believe me, we
were all drinking at those ages in America too. I think in America it
is so common for teenagers to have a drivers license and their own cars
- therein lies the problem - Drunks don't kill people, cars do.

Hmmm, perhaps you're right...maybe that does have something to do with
it. I just know there don't seem to be as many concerns about it there.



Originally posted by Hypertweeky The drinking age in
Spain is 18 but the very first time I got plastered I was 13.

Is it really 18? For some reason I thought it was 16 also. At least
clubs let me in to drink when I was 16...maybe they just weren't
supposed to. ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy But did you then
proceed to stumble out the door, into a car, and boogey on down the
boulevard?
Speaking on my behalf...when I got drunk in high
school (in the US) the rule was you are either sober to drive, or else
(what everyone did) you crash at the place until the morning when
you're good to drive.
In Spain we'd just take a taxi home...or have the
parents pick us up. :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy But did you then
proceed to stumble out the door, into a car, and boogey on down the
boulevard?
Speaking on my behalf...when I got drunk in high
school (in the US) the rule was you are either sober to drive, or else
(what everyone did) you crash at the place until the morning when
you're good to drive.
In Spain we'd just take a taxi home...or have the
parents pick us up. :D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Speaking on my
behalf...when I got drunk in high school (in the US) the rule was you
are either sober to drive, or else (what everyone did) you crash at the
place until the morning when you're good to drive. In Spain we'd just
take a taxi home...or have the parents pick us up. :D

So did
most of us. However, there are a lot of people when they get drunk
(especially being young and probably having a lower tolerance) that
become 10 foot tall and bullet proof, especially in Texas.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi Speaking on my
behalf...when I got drunk in high school (in the US) the rule was you
are either sober to drive, or else (what everyone did) you crash at the
place until the morning when you're good to drive. In Spain we'd just
take a taxi home...or have the parents pick us up. :D

So did
most of us. However, there are a lot of people when they get drunk
(especially being young and probably having a lower tolerance) that
become 10 foot tall and bullet proof, especially in Texas.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi *L* You got me there! I
guess I messed that one up, huh. Hmmm, perhaps you're
right...maybe that does have something to do with it. I just know there
don't seem to be as many concerns about it there. Is it
really 18? For some reason I thought it was 16 also. At least clubs let
me in to drink when I was 16...maybe they just weren't supposed to. ;)


It all depends where you go,In the large cities You wont be
allowed to drink or let in the clubs if you are under 18, the small
cities are a total different story. Teens always find someone older to
but the alcohol for them, this isnt a secret;)
I have got drunk from all
types of alcoholic beverages that everytime I smell any of them.. I get
sick, There is only a couple alcoholic beverages I could drink, but I
dont because I simply dont like it:)
Though the per capita consumption
of alcohol in countries like France, Spain, and Portugal is greater than
in the U.S., the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower. This
comes from educated and gradual drinking. Europeans teach their
children to respect alcoholic beverages from a young age, which allows
for a lower drinking age:)
I mean no offense by that comment, so dont
flame me please!!:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi *L* You got me there! I
guess I messed that one up, huh. Hmmm, perhaps you're
right...maybe that does have something to do with it. I just know there
don't seem to be as many concerns about it there. Is it
really 18? For some reason I thought it was 16 also. At least clubs let
me in to drink when I was 16...maybe they just weren't supposed to. ;)


It all depends where you go,In the large cities You wont be
allowed to drink or let in the clubs if you are under 18, the small
cities are a total different story. Teens always find someone older to
but the alcohol for them, this isnt a secret;)
I have got drunk from all
types of alcoholic beverages that everytime I smell any of them.. I get
sick, There is only a couple alcoholic beverages I could drink, but I
dont because I simply dont like it:)
Though the per capita consumption
of alcohol in countries like France, Spain, and Portugal is greater than
in the U.S., the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower. This
comes from educated and gradual drinking. Europeans teach their
children to respect alcoholic beverages from a young age, which allows
for a lower drinking age:)
I mean no offense by that comment, so dont
flame me please!!:)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

blenky16 wrote:
Ok, my question is this (as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and whether PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a fact)... but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here since last February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never heard about it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I should be signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am granted citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more readily available?!

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, I believe.
I also thought it was in the immigration documents, maybe the I-485, but
I am not in the mood to check right now. AFAIK, every post office in
the country has forms.

blenky16 wrote:
Ok, my question is this (as I am not about to argue between the merits of the draft, and whether PR should be in... I am living here, I am in it, that is just a fact)... but WHERE is someone told about this?!!! I have been here since last February (25 when I came in, 26 now pushing 27), and I never heard about it, read about it, or heard any one tell me about it. If I should be signed up, and I am not and this will affect whether I am granted citizenship, wouldn't it be nice to have this information more readily available?!

Ignorance of the law is not a defense, I believe.
I also thought it was in the immigration documents, maybe the I-485, but
I am not in the mood to check right now. AFAIK, every post office in
the country has forms.

DCMark wrote:
No he is not, you are being wildly oversensitive. I seriously doubt he knows the financial situation of your spouse. He was talking in general. And regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income taxes at any rate.

Not true... You only have to file a tax return if you exceed the minimum
income limits required to file, or if you want a refund.

DCMark wrote:
No he is not, you are being wildly oversensitive. I seriously doubt he knows the financial situation of your spouse. He was talking in general. And regardless of your spouse's income, he has to file income taxes at any rate.

Not true... You only have to file a tax return if you exceed the minimum
income limits required to file, or if you want a refund.

Originally posted by Mrraveltay Ignorance of the law is
not a defense, I believe. I also thought it was in the immigration
documents, maybe the I-485, but I am not in the mood to check right
now. AFAIK, every post office in the country has forms.
I
think you're right. It seems like I read it somewhere along the
immigration process, but unfortunately can't remember where I read it. I
want to say that it was perhaps on the TV slide show at the London
embassy while you were waiting for the visa interview, but I could
totally be making that up. But it does seem like I read it somewhere
(...somewhere aside from the post office).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Mrraveltay Ignorance of the law is
not a defense, I believe. I also thought it was in the immigration
documents, maybe the I-485, but I am not in the mood to check right
now. AFAIK, every post office in the country has forms.
I
think you're right. It seems like I read it somewhere along the
immigration process, but unfortunately can't remember where I read it. I
want to say that it was perhaps on the TV slide show at the London
embassy while you were waiting for the visa interview, but I could
totally be making that up. But it does seem like I read it somewhere
(...somewhere aside from the post office).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy tweeky, But did you
then proceed to stumble out the door, into a car, and boogey on down the
boulevard? Regards, JEff

No way!!
One thing is to get
drunk.. and another is to drive:eek:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy tweeky, But did you
then proceed to stumble out the door, into a car, and boogey on down the
boulevard? Regards, JEff

No way!!
One thing is to get
drunk.. and another is to drive:eek:


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi So why didn't they lower
the drinking age with it?

Hi:

The 21st Amendment repealed
the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. It specifically left control of
intoxicating beverages to the States by excepting such trade from the
interstate commerece clause.

Actually, several states DID lower the
drinking age to 18, but it is now a uniform 21.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi So why didn't they lower
the drinking age with it?

Hi:

The 21st Amendment repealed
the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. It specifically left control of
intoxicating beverages to the States by excepting such trade from the
interstate commerece clause.

Actually, several states DID lower the
drinking age to 18, but it is now a uniform 21.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla It specifically left
control of intoxicating beverages to the States by excepting such trade
from the interstate commerece clause.
I feel a bit dumb for
asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush*


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla It specifically left
control of intoxicating beverages to the States by excepting such trade
from the interstate commerece clause.
I feel a bit dumb for
asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush*


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

DCMark wrote:
I think the draft for everyone would be ideal,

Cepting for them thar gays eh? Oh yes, "don't ask, don't tell", I keep
forgetting...

In case you didn't catch it I was being sarcastic. Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to
have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans, not just poor Americans will be impacted by the criminal in the White house.

If you really think that the person in the White House is a criminal
then impeach him.

--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

DCMark wrote:
I think the draft for everyone would be ideal,

Cepting for them thar gays eh? Oh yes, "don't ask, don't tell", I keep
forgetting...

In case you didn't catch it I was being sarcastic. Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to
have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans, not just poor Americans will be impacted by the criminal in the White house.

If you really think that the person in the White House is a criminal
then impeach him.

--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

Originally posted by Steffi I feel a bit dumb for
asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush*


Hi:

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 gives the Congress the power to
regulate commerce between the states. This has been interpreted as a
"reserved" power in that the individual states can't interfere with
this. BTW, on the other end of things, the power given Congress under
this clause has been pretty broadly construed as to what constittues
"commerece" so as to allow the Feds to poke their nose in the topic.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Steffi I feel a bit dumb for
asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush*


Hi:

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 gives the Congress the power to
regulate commerce between the states. This has been interpreted as a
"reserved" power in that the individual states can't interfere with
this. BTW, on the other end of things, the power given Congress under
this clause has been pretty broadly construed as to what constittues
"commerece" so as to allow the Feds to poke their nose in the topic.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely
to have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.


Personally, I think there should be some form of universal
national service. It need not be military.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely
to have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.


Personally, I think there should be some form of universal
national service. It need not be military.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote:
What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is. Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He WANTED to be a US resident.

Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only
applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce
the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really
will run into constitutional problems. It would be interesting if they got
rid of "don't ask, don't tell" too! ;)

BTW, for quite a few people on this newsgroup they don't actually want to be
a US resident, their spouse wants them too! ;)

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination

"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote:
What in blazes is he upset about? Is he male? Yes, he is. Is he between the ages of 18 and 26? Apparently so. Is a a resident of the United States? Yes, and he worked damn hard to get it. He WANTED to be a US resident.

Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only
applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce
the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really
will run into constitutional problems. It would be interesting if they got
rid of "don't ask, don't tell" too! ;)

BTW, for quite a few people on this newsgroup they don't actually want to be
a US resident, their spouse wants them too! ;)

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination

Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I
am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.


Originally
posted by Andrew Defaria DCMark wrote: I think the
draft for everyone would be ideal, Cepting for them thar gays
eh? Oh yes, "don't ask, don't tell", I keep forgetting... In
case you didn't catch it I was being sarcastic. Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to
have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans, not just poor Americans will be impacted by the
criminal in the White house. If you really think
that the person in the White House is a criminal then impeach him.
--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I
am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.


Originally
posted by Andrew Defaria DCMark wrote: I think the
draft for everyone would be ideal, Cepting for them thar gays
eh? Oh yes, "don't ask, don't tell", I keep forgetting... In
case you didn't catch it I was being sarcastic. Personally I think
that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to
have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight.
assuming the deferment system is tightened up. That way, all americans, not just poor Americans will be impacted by the
criminal in the White house. If you really think
that the person in the White House is a criminal then impeach him.
--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Impeach him how exactly?
If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY
disenfranchised Americans.

Hi:

You DO have a partial
franchise -- you can vote in the presidential election. You can't vote
for Congress or Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city
"government" after a fashion.

People in Guam and Puerto Rico are truly
disenfranchised. As are all expatriate U.S. citizens.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by DCMark Impeach him how exactly?
If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY
disenfranchised Americans.

Hi:

You DO have a partial
franchise -- you can vote in the presidential election. You can't vote
for Congress or Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city
"government" after a fashion.

People in Guam and Puerto Rico are truly
disenfranchised. As are all expatriate U.S. citizens.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

janadeen wrote:
I was not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail.

I don't know about you but when somebody says they have to peel somebody
off a wall it conjures up images of that person being terrified not
merely surprised.

--
Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected.

janadeen wrote:
I was not saying that my husband was upset over anything. When I mentioned having to peel him off the wall, I was just making note of how surprised he was at the notice he got in the mail.

I don't know about you but when somebody says they have to peel somebody
off a wall it conjures up images of that person being terrified not
merely surprised.

--
Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected.

"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message
news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com... Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems.

The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a
constitutional right to equality.

Paulgani

"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message
news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com... Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems.

The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a
constitutional right to equality.

Paulgani

Originally posted by jeffreyhy Drinking age is
controlled by the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting
age controlled by the level of government for the position or issue
being voted on; in some localities non-citizens can vote on certain
things in that locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-
old drinking age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time
controlling their drinking and driving than do older folks, since
they're doing both for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with
those 21 and over, 18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot
of people and the states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up
to the fact and raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New
Jersey I lost a number of friends during high school from taking trips
across the state line into New York.

While this is all so,
the Feds did have a hand in raising the drinking age to 21 in all
states. As I recall it, this was an outcome the Feds wanted, so they
told the States 'if you want the Federal Highway Funds we normally give
you, you must have a drinking age of 21.'
----
OK, I just googled to
check my facts. Turns out this was Liddy Dole's 1996 pet project. Here's
a 'lil story that brings up some of these other arguments (draft,
abortion etc):
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060501.shtml

Oh!
And, Jenna Bush's underage drinking. ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by jeffreyhy Drinking age is
controlled by the states, not by the federal government. [So is voting
age controlled by the level of government for the position or issue
being voted on; in some localities non-citizens can vote on certain
things in that locality.] A number of states did used to have an 18 year-
old drinking age. Unfortunately, 18 year-olds have an even harder time
controlling their drinking and driving than do older folks, since
they're doing both for the first time. As bad a problem as it is with
those 21 and over, 18 year-olds who were allowed to drink killed a lot
of people and the states that allowed drinking at 18 eventually woke up
to the fact and raised their drinking ages. Growing up in northern New
Jersey I lost a number of friends during high school from taking trips
across the state line into New York.

While this is all so,
the Feds did have a hand in raising the drinking age to 21 in all
states. As I recall it, this was an outcome the Feds wanted, so they
told the States 'if you want the Federal Highway Funds we normally give
you, you must have a drinking age of 21.'
----
OK, I just googled to
check my facts. Turns out this was Liddy Dole's 1996 pet project. Here's
a 'lil story that brings up some of these other arguments (draft,
abortion etc):
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060501.shtml

Oh!
And, Jenna Bush's underage drinking. ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election.

With my luck I'll be drafted before I get an EAD
:)

I have mixed feelings about this. Having served in the British army
after I left high school (before I decided to do something with my life,
ultimately leading me to Canada...) the prospect does not concern me
particularly, although I didn't think I'd ever be marching up and down
in the cold, wind and drizzle again.

I do have some reservations about
this on principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting)
and with that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend
the country in times of crisis. Is it fair to expect someone to make the
ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of citizenship,
when that person has none of the privileges? There have been many cases
of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently being deported,
which I think is absolutely indefensible.

I absolutely disagree that
because someone has the right to physically reside somewhere that they
are also morally obligated to die for that somewhere. When people fight
for America they fight for more than geography - they fight for an
ideal, call it freedom. To ask people to fight for an ideal that they
have no stake in, and no right to have a future stake in, is morally
dishonest.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Scout As DCMark already
mentioned.....the possibility of the US reinstating the draft is going
to be very real very soon..........say late November 2004 after the
election.

With my luck I'll be drafted before I get an EAD
:)

I have mixed feelings about this. Having served in the British army
after I left high school (before I decided to do something with my life,
ultimately leading me to Canada...) the prospect does not concern me
particularly, although I didn't think I'd ever be marching up and down
in the cold, wind and drizzle again.

I do have some reservations about
this on principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting)
and with that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend
the country in times of crisis. Is it fair to expect someone to make the
ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of citizenship,
when that person has none of the privileges? There have been many cases
of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently being deported,
which I think is absolutely indefensible.

I absolutely disagree that
because someone has the right to physically reside somewhere that they
are also morally obligated to die for that somewhere. When people fight
for America they fight for more than geography - they fight for an
ideal, call it freedom. To ask people to fight for an ideal that they
have no stake in, and no right to have a future stake in, is morally
dishonest.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC To ask people to fight
for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a future
stake in, is morally dishonest.

Did you miss the earlier post
dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S. citizen ASAP?
Here it is if you missed it...

"Also, aliens in the military during
wartime become immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started
Basic Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of
getting your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home,
getting shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I
remember quite clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out
in order to be processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at
least the Army worked to make sure you were a citizen".


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC To ask people to fight
for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a future
stake in, is morally dishonest.

Did you miss the earlier post
dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S. citizen ASAP?
Here it is if you missed it...

"Also, aliens in the military during
wartime become immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started
Basic Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of
getting your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home,
getting shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I
remember quite clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out
in order to be processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at
least the Army worked to make sure you were a citizen".


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Matthew Udall wrote:
Did you miss the earlier post dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S. citizen ASAP? Here it is if you missed it... "Also, aliens in the military during wartime become immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army worked to make sure you were a citizen".

That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are
willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay.

Matthew Udall wrote:
Did you miss the earlier post dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S. citizen ASAP? Here it is if you missed it... "Also, aliens in the military during wartime become immediately eligible for naturalization. Before I started Basic Training, I went through "reception" first -- the procedures of getting your clothing issued, sending you civilian clothes back home, getting shots, getting eyeglasses, filling out forms, etc etc. I remember quite clearly that on day 2, they had all non-citizens fall out in order to be processed for citizenship. If you were to be shot at, at least the Army worked to make sure you were a citizen".

That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are
willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay.

Originally posted by Matthew Udall Did you miss the
earlier post dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S.
citizen ASAP? Here it is if you missed it...

I got that and
it was understood. I have no qualms whatsoever with it.

I was thinking
about people in K-1 or K-3 status in particular, or anyone with PR
pending but not approved, who are still required to register for
selective service. I was assuming that someone in this situation could
serve and subsequently have their PR application denied. And then there
are the illegals who are also required to register for selective
service, who would similarly not receive this benefit.

But,

I have
just read the Acts themselves, INA 328 & INA 329, and I cannot see any
specific requirement for LPR status - in fact it says "whether or not he
has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence," with the provision that "such person shall have been in the
United States." Presumably "shall have been in the United States" would
mean as a K-3er, an illegal, or anything else.

I'm not a lawyer and
don't have the foggiest idea about the case law surrounding this. So I
wonder, if a K-1 person were called up and sent to fight, would they be
eligible for the immediate naturalization benefit? If so, I concede and
apologise for my ill-informed bluster.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Matthew Udall Did you miss the
earlier post dealing with an LPR soldier's ability to become a U.S.
citizen ASAP? Here it is if you missed it...

I got that and
it was understood. I have no qualms whatsoever with it.

I was thinking
about people in K-1 or K-3 status in particular, or anyone with PR
pending but not approved, who are still required to register for
selective service. I was assuming that someone in this situation could
serve and subsequently have their PR application denied. And then there
are the illegals who are also required to register for selective
service, who would similarly not receive this benefit.

But,

I have
just read the Acts themselves, INA 328 & INA 329, and I cannot see any
specific requirement for LPR status - in fact it says "whether or not he
has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence," with the provision that "such person shall have been in the
United States." Presumably "shall have been in the United States" would
mean as a K-3er, an illegal, or anything else.

I'm not a lawyer and
don't have the foggiest idea about the case law surrounding this. So I
wonder, if a K-1 person were called up and sent to fight, would they be
eligible for the immediate naturalization benefit? If so, I concede and
apologise for my ill-informed bluster.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC I got that and it was
understood. I have no qualms whatsoever with it. I was thinking
about people in K-1 or K-3 status in particular, or anyone with PR
pending but not approved, who are still required to register for
selective service. I was assuming that someone in this situation could
serve and subsequently have their PR application denied. And then there
are the illegals who are also required to register for selective
service, who would similarly not receive this benefit. But, I
have just read the Acts themselves, INA 328 & INA 329, and I cannot see
any specific requirement for LPR status - in fact it says "whether or
not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence," with the provision that "such person shall have been in the
United States." Presumably "shall have been in the United States" would
mean as a K-3er, an illegal, or anything else. I'm not a lawyer
and don't have the foggiest idea about the case law surrounding this. So
I wonder, if a K-1 person were called up and sent to fight, would they
be eligible for the immediate naturalization benefit? If so, I concede
and apologise for my ill-informed bluster.

Hi:

Section 329
does not need any lawful status.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC I got that and it was
understood. I have no qualms whatsoever with it. I was thinking
about people in K-1 or K-3 status in particular, or anyone with PR
pending but not approved, who are still required to register for
selective service. I was assuming that someone in this situation could
serve and subsequently have their PR application denied. And then there
are the illegals who are also required to register for selective
service, who would similarly not receive this benefit. But, I
have just read the Acts themselves, INA 328 & INA 329, and I cannot see
any specific requirement for LPR status - in fact it says "whether or
not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence," with the provision that "such person shall have been in the
United States." Presumably "shall have been in the United States" would
mean as a K-3er, an illegal, or anything else. I'm not a lawyer
and don't have the foggiest idea about the case law surrounding this. So
I wonder, if a K-1 person were called up and sent to fight, would they
be eligible for the immediate naturalization benefit? If so, I concede
and apologise for my ill-informed bluster.

Hi:

Section 329
does not need any lawful status.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Very partial. And our city government does not have full soveriegnty
nor is it fairly compensated for all the federal land that is outside
the tax rolls.

Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue
impeachment impossible.


Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi: You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the
presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or Senate -- but
they do let you have an elected city "government" after a fashion.

People in Guam and Puerto Rico are truly disenfranchised. As are all
expatriate U.S. citizens.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Very partial. And our city government does not have full soveriegnty
nor is it fairly compensated for all the federal land that is outside
the tax rolls.

Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue
impeachment impossible.


Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi: You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the
presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or Senate -- but
they do let you have an elected city "government" after a fashion.

People in Guam and Puerto Rico are truly disenfranchised. As are all
expatriate U.S. citizens.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"meauxna" <member1851@british_expats.com> wrote:
While this is all so, the Feds did have a hand in raising the drinking age to 21 in all states. As I recall it, this was an outcome the Feds wanted, so they told the States 'if you want the Federal Highway Funds we normally give you, you must have a drinking age of 21.'

Definitely true about the federal intervention. Virginia went from 21 to 18
and then when the federal funding issue came up moved back to 21.

Let's get something straight on the underage drinking and driving thing
though. In other countries they say drinking and driving *for all ages* is
bad, they have big public education campaigns, hard-hitting advertisements
and proper punishments. In the US they sweep it under the carpet, raise the
drinking age to 21 and it's business as usual. What do we get? Binge
drinking in secret and many more alcohol related deaths than in comparable
countries.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination

"meauxna" <member1851@british_expats.com> wrote:
While this is all so, the Feds did have a hand in raising the drinking age to 21 in all states. As I recall it, this was an outcome the Feds wanted, so they told the States 'if you want the Federal Highway Funds we normally give you, you must have a drinking age of 21.'

Definitely true about the federal intervention. Virginia went from 21 to 18
and then when the federal funding issue came up moved back to 21.

Let's get something straight on the underage drinking and driving thing
though. In other countries they say drinking and driving *for all ages* is
bad, they have big public education campaigns, hard-hitting advertisements
and proper punishments. In the US they sweep it under the carpet, raise the
drinking age to 21 and it's business as usual. What do we get? Binge
drinking in secret and many more alcohol related deaths than in comparable
countries.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination

Leslie66 wrote:
It's also important that people understand the image that the United States projects to the rest of the world. Most countries do not have an enormous military. Many countries do not even have police officers that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of aggression and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing.

Gosh you'd think an intending immigrant might be motivated to doing a
little research about the place he is intending on living...

--
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Leslie66 wrote:
It's also important that people understand the image that the United States projects to the rest of the world. Most countries do not have an enormous military. Many countries do not even have police officers that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of aggression and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing.

Gosh you'd think an intending immigrant might be motivated to doing a
little research about the place he is intending on living...

--
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC With my luck I'll be
drafted before I get an EAD :) I have mixed feelings about this.
Having served in the British army after I left high school (before I
decided to do something with my life, ultimately leading me to
Canada...) the prospect does not concern me particularly, although I
didn't think I'd ever be marching up and down in the cold, wind and
drizzle again. I do have some reservations about this on
principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting) and with
that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend the
country in times of crisis. Is it fair to expect someone to make the
ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of
citizenship, when that person has none of the privileges? There have
been many cases of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently
being deported, which I think is absolutely indefensible. I
absolutely disagree that because someone has the right to physically
reside somewhere that they are also morally obligated to die for that
somewhere. When people fight for America they fight for more than
geography - they fight for an ideal, call it freedom. To ask people to
fight for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a
future stake in, is morally dishonest.

Hi:

There is NO
draft at present. Conscription ended in 1973. In 1979 or 1980, they
reinstituted a "standby" system of REGISTRATION ONLY. Thats all that
been in place for two decades now. And if they try to reinsate actual
conscription, a lot of "baby boomers" have kids subject to
conscription. I remember that my parents respected the privacy of my
brother and I and our mail was left alone -- including college and law
school admissions/rejections -- but anything from Board #83 got opened.
Having two sons of draft age caused made Dad question the Vietnam war
long before it became fashionable.

[As an aside, a friend of my wife
settled in Israel -- and she had two sons [dual US/Israel nationality
BTW] whose service in Tz'hal spanned five years. She knew that if she
received a "Hi, Mom! How's things going?" phone call from either son,
there would soon be a newscast about an firefight in Lebanon. She was
quite relieved when younger son completed his service.]


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by CalgaryAMC With my luck I'll be
drafted before I get an EAD :) I have mixed feelings about this.
Having served in the British army after I left high school (before I
decided to do something with my life, ultimately leading me to
Canada...) the prospect does not concern me particularly, although I
didn't think I'd ever be marching up and down in the cold, wind and
drizzle again. I do have some reservations about this on
principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting) and with
that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend the
country in times of crisis. Is it fair to expect someone to make the
ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of
citizenship, when that person has none of the privileges? There have
been many cases of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently
being deported, which I think is absolutely indefensible. I
absolutely disagree that because someone has the right to physically
reside somewhere that they are also morally obligated to die for that
somewhere. When people fight for America they fight for more than
geography - they fight for an ideal, call it freedom. To ask people to
fight for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a
future stake in, is morally dishonest.

Hi:

There is NO
draft at present. Conscription ended in 1973. In 1979 or 1980, they
reinstituted a "standby" system of REGISTRATION ONLY. Thats all that
been in place for two decades now. And if they try to reinsate actual
conscription, a lot of "baby boomers" have kids subject to
conscription. I remember that my parents respected the privacy of my
brother and I and our mail was left alone -- including college and law
school admissions/rejections -- but anything from Board #83 got opened.
Having two sons of draft age caused made Dad question the Vietnam war
long before it became fashionable.

[As an aside, a friend of my wife
settled in Israel -- and she had two sons [dual US/Israel nationality
BTW] whose service in Tz'hal spanned five years. She knew that if she
received a "Hi, Mom! How's things going?" phone call from either son,
there would soon be a newscast about an firefight in Lebanon. She was
quite relieved when younger son completed his service.]


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

lairdside wrote:
Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and under 50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband loves to harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3 of the constitution. He wants to know when the government plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun and ammo?).

Hmmm... White males? Would that be excluding all blacks and latinos?
Looking at http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html and
searching for the word "white" yields nothing.
--
They show you how detergents take out bloodstains. I think if you've got
a T-shirt with bloodstains all over it, maybe your laundry isn't your
biggest problem.

lairdside wrote:
Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and under 50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband loves to harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3 of the constitution. He wants to know when the government plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun and ammo?).

Hmmm... White males? Would that be excluding all blacks and latinos?
Looking at http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html and
searching for the word "white" yields nothing.
--
They show you how detergents take out bloodstains. I think if you've got
a T-shirt with bloodstains all over it, maybe your laundry isn't your
biggest problem.

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
However, this war is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out of power, but have we truly helped this country in any other way? I'd say not.

I'd say we probably have. To what extent remains to be seen. The very
fact that Saddam is no longer in power can do much toward progressing
the country in general. Many people there are very happy that we did
what we did. I also believe that we are doing a certain amount of
rebuilding too.
Most of us, if we were truthful, do not believe in this war, and that's why a lot of folks most likely do not volunteer.

Let's be realistic - people are volunteering because they don't want to
get shot and die, period. Other have already volunteered and had to go.
Still many go willingly and hope/expect not to die. And I guess there
are some with death wishes though rare.
Where is this information stating the draft is going to be reinstated? I've heard no such information on the news or elsewhere. And a draft wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't had military down-sizing in the last several years.

And at what cost would it have been to keep the military that full?
Probably a lot. However, in general, I think our army and it's vast
technology kicks butt and kicks it quickly. We probably could still kick
butt with a lot fewer people too.
Obviously judging from the reactions of some, this is a very touchy subject, but I do not feel that a new immigrant should be forced into fighting. Some did not come here to "enjoy the freedoms," they simply came here to be with their other half.

Well as was said, it's part of the deal.
--
RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure.

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
However, this war is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out of power, but have we truly helped this country in any other way? I'd say not.

I'd say we probably have. To what extent remains to be seen. The very
fact that Saddam is no longer in power can do much toward progressing
the country in general. Many people there are very happy that we did
what we did. I also believe that we are doing a certain amount of
rebuilding too.
Most of us, if we were truthful, do not believe in this war, and that's why a lot of folks most likely do not volunteer.

Let's be realistic - people are volunteering because they don't want to
get shot and die, period. Other have already volunteered and had to go.
Still many go willingly and hope/expect not to die. And I guess there
are some with death wishes though rare.
Where is this information stating the draft is going to be reinstated? I've heard no such information on the news or elsewhere. And a draft wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't had military down-sizing in the last several years.

And at what cost would it have been to keep the military that full?
Probably a lot. However, in general, I think our army and it's vast
technology kicks butt and kicks it quickly. We probably could still kick
butt with a lot fewer people too.
Obviously judging from the reactions of some, this is a very touchy subject, but I do not feel that a new immigrant should be forced into fighting. Some did not come here to "enjoy the freedoms," they simply came here to be with their other half.

Well as was said, it's part of the deal.
--
RAM disk is *not* an installation procedure.

Andy Platt wrote:
Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems. It would be interesting if they got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" too! ;)

That's an interesting point. If the draft was reinstated I'm sure it
would bring about a very lively debate as to the constitutionality of
both issues. Not sure that Bush wants such a debate especially
considering his stance on gay marriage.
BTW, for quite a few people on this newsgroup they don't actually want to be a US resident, their spouse wants them too! ;)

Regardless, they've accepted that request (and all that goes with it).

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.

Andy Platt wrote:
Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems. It would be interesting if they got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" too! ;)

That's an interesting point. If the draft was reinstated I'm sure it
would bring about a very lively debate as to the constitutionality of
both issues. Not sure that Bush wants such a debate especially
considering his stance on gay marriage.
BTW, for quite a few people on this newsgroup they don't actually want to be a US resident, their spouse wants them too! ;)

Regardless, they've accepted that request (and all that goes with it).

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by Steffi I feel a bit dumb for asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush* Hi: Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. This has been interpreted as a "reserved" power in that the individual states can't interfere with this. BTW, on the other end of things, the power given Congress under this clause has been pretty broadly construed as to what constittues "commerece" so as to allow the Feds to poke their nose in the topic.

Yeah that's the part that gets me. I think it's way too broadly construed>

--
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by Steffi I feel a bit dumb for asking, but what's the interstate commerece clause? *blush* Hi: Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. This has been interpreted as a "reserved" power in that the individual states can't interfere with this. BTW, on the other end of things, the power given Congress under this clause has been pretty broadly construed as to what constittues "commerece" so as to allow the Feds to poke their nose in the topic.

Yeah that's the part that gets me. I think it's way too broadly construed>

--
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Personally I think that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight. Personally, I think there should be some form of universal national service. It need not be military.

Interesting viewpoint however I'm not particularly into indentured
servitude. I can understand it in the case of national defense.

--
If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland
called Holes?

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Personally I think that each and every American of proper age should be equally likely to have to serve. Rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight. Personally, I think there should be some form of universal national service. It need not be military.

Interesting viewpoint however I'm not particularly into indentured
servitude. I can understand it in the case of national defense.

--
If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland
called Holes?

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMark Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.
Oh I get it now... How about moving? :-)
--
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went
nuts.

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMark Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.
Oh I get it now... How about moving? :-)
--
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went
nuts.

Paul Gani wrote:
"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com... Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a constitutional right to equality.

Doesn't mean that it would necessarily "fly" in today's political
climate though.

--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Paul Gani wrote:
"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com... Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it only applies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introduce the draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they really will run into constitutional problems. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a constitutional right to equality.

Doesn't mean that it would necessarily "fly" in today's political
climate though.

--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

DCMark wrote:
Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.

Also a lot can be done to raise awareness of your viewpoint by
policitcal activism. Surely if you live in DC I would find it hard to
believe you have not been exposed to such. My point being, merely
calling him a criminal in a Usenet newsgroup will do little for you if
you truly believe he is a criminal. There are much better ways to get
your message across.
--
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

DCMark wrote:
Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans.

Also a lot can be done to raise awareness of your viewpoint by
policitcal activism. Surely if you live in DC I would find it hard to
believe you have not been exposed to such. My point being, merely
calling him a criminal in a Usenet newsgroup will do little for you if
you truly believe he is a criminal. There are much better ways to get
your message across.
--
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

CalgaryAMC wrote:
I do have some reservations about this on principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting) and with that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend the country in times of crisis.

I do not directly link the privilege of only voting with the
responsibility for serving in the armed forces when necessary. There is
much more privileges that you have here in American than just the right
to vote. Sure the allure of citizenship has, IMHO, been whittled down so
much so that voting is about the only benny of citizenship anymore. I
have said before that I think that many of the rights and freedoms that
citizens enjoy should be not afforded to immigrants and even LPR so that
they continue the process toward citizenship whereas they then gain all
rights afforded to other citizens. IOW you gotta make it worth it for
them to want to attain citizenship. Still they have many rights here as
CPR and LPRs etc, often rights that they do not enjoy in their own
country and rights that many risk their lives and break laws to get.
Naturally this varies from country to country.
Is it fair to expect someone to make the ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of citizenship, when that person has none of the privileges?

I'd say that the immigrant is enjoying many privileges including things
like freedom of speech, religion, press, etc, etc as well as taking
advantage of the social net, fire services, police, etc. Now granted
many of these exist also in other countries, sometimes better and
sometimes worse and the immigrant is "putting into the system" (assuming
they are working and paying taxes) however I still say that they are
enjoying many privileges right off the bat. Just being able to vote does
not seem to me a sufficient excuse for having to lay your life on the
line. Let me ask you this: if a person gives up their right to vote can
they exclude themselves from service?
There have been many cases of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently being deported, which I think is absolutely indefensible.

This is news to me and I'd agree it's indefensible (thought there may be
some cases where it would be defensible).
I absolutely disagree that because someone has the right to physically reside somewhere that they are also morally obligated to die for that somewhere.

IMHO it's not just physical resident but many other things that come
along with that residence.
When people fight for America they fight for more than geography - they fight for an ideal, call it freedom.

Don't like the wording of that. Don't "call it freedom" - it is freedom.
To ask people to fight for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a future stake in, is morally dishonest.

I believe that even the newly arrived immigrant has a stake in, partakes
in and enjoys freedom.

--
I won't rise to the occasion, but I'll slide over to it.

CalgaryAMC wrote:
I do have some reservations about this on principle, however. Citizenship comes with privileges (voting) and with that privilege comes responsibility - one of which is to defend the country in times of crisis.

I do not directly link the privilege of only voting with the
responsibility for serving in the armed forces when necessary. There is
much more privileges that you have here in American than just the right
to vote. Sure the allure of citizenship has, IMHO, been whittled down so
much so that voting is about the only benny of citizenship anymore. I
have said before that I think that many of the rights and freedoms that
citizens enjoy should be not afforded to immigrants and even LPR so that
they continue the process toward citizenship whereas they then gain all
rights afforded to other citizens. IOW you gotta make it worth it for
them to want to attain citizenship. Still they have many rights here as
CPR and LPRs etc, often rights that they do not enjoy in their own
country and rights that many risk their lives and break laws to get.
Naturally this varies from country to country.
Is it fair to expect someone to make the ultimate sacrifice, and bear all of the responsibilities of citizenship, when that person has none of the privileges?

I'd say that the immigrant is enjoying many privileges including things
like freedom of speech, religion, press, etc, etc as well as taking
advantage of the social net, fire services, police, etc. Now granted
many of these exist also in other countries, sometimes better and
sometimes worse and the immigrant is "putting into the system" (assuming
they are working and paying taxes) however I still say that they are
enjoying many privileges right off the bat. Just being able to vote does
not seem to me a sufficient excuse for having to lay your life on the
line. Let me ask you this: if a person gives up their right to vote can
they exclude themselves from service?
There have been many cases of soldiers serving and being wounded and subsequently being deported, which I think is absolutely indefensible.

This is news to me and I'd agree it's indefensible (thought there may be
some cases where it would be defensible).
I absolutely disagree that because someone has the right to physically reside somewhere that they are also morally obligated to die for that somewhere.

IMHO it's not just physical resident but many other things that come
along with that residence.
When people fight for America they fight for more than geography - they fight for an ideal, call it freedom.

Don't like the wording of that. Don't "call it freedom" - it is freedom.
To ask people to fight for an ideal that they have no stake in, and no right to have a future stake in, is morally dishonest.

I believe that even the newly arrived immigrant has a stake in, partakes
in and enjoys freedom.

--
I won't rise to the occasion, but I'll slide over to it.

"DCMark" <member6276@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1221808.1075949915@britishexpats.com... Very partial. And our city government does not have full soveriegnty nor is it fairly compensated for all the federal land that is outside the tax rolls. Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue impeachment impossible.

Seriously dude, move 5 miles in any direction. Lower taxes, better roads,
schools, services, etc...

Anyway, you're living on land stolen from Maryland. Not that we want it
back....

Paulgani

"DCMark" <member6276@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1221808.1075949915@britishexpats.com... Very partial. And our city government does not have full soveriegnty nor is it fairly compensated for all the federal land that is outside the tax rolls. Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue impeachment impossible.

Seriously dude, move 5 miles in any direction. Lower taxes, better roads,
schools, services, etc...

Anyway, you're living on land stolen from Maryland. Not that we want it
back....

Paulgani

Michael D. Young wrote:
That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay.

Actually I like this one! :-)

--
Why do people say "did you see that" when watching a movie at the
theater? No, I paid $12 to come to the cinema and stare at the floor!

Michael D. Young wrote:
That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay.

Actually I like this one! :-)

--
Why do people say "did you see that" when watching a movie at the
theater? No, I paid $12 to come to the cinema and stare at the floor!

Originally posted by Folinskyinla There is NO draft at
present.

I understand there is presently no draft. The EAD
joke was an attempt, obviously failed, at ironic humour.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla There is NO draft at
present.

I understand there is presently no draft. The EAD
joke was an attempt, obviously failed, at ironic humour.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMarkImpeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans. Hi: You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city "government" after a fashion.

Not to mention that DC has been like this for over 200 years, so it
should be no big surprise for people that decide to live there.

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMarkImpeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised Americans. Hi: You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city "government" after a fashion.

Not to mention that DC has been like this for over 200 years, so it
should be no big surprise for people that decide to live there.

Paul Gani wrote:
"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com...Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it onlyapplies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introducethe draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they reallywill run into constitutional problems. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a constitutional right to equality.

That's debateable. Are you saying that other laws don't protect a
women's equality.

Paul Gani wrote:
"Andy Platt" <andy@gibster.com> wrote in message news:4021916d$1@news101.his.com...Apart from the fact that it should be unconstitutional because it onlyapplies to men I have no real problem with it. If they really do introducethe draft they had better include women too, though, otherwise they reallywill run into constitutional problems. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed. Women in America do not have a constitutional right to equality.

That's debateable. Are you saying that other laws don't protect a
women's equality.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria lairdside wrote:
Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and under
50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband
loves to harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3
of the constitution. He wants to know when the government
plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun and ammo?).
Hmmm... White males? Would that be excluding all blacks and latinos?
Looking at http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html"]h-
ttp://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html[/url] and
searching for the word "white" yields nothing. -- They show you how
detergents take out bloodstains. I think if you've got a T-shirt with
bloodstains all over it, maybe your laundry isn't your biggest
problem.

Yes, that would be excluding non-whites.

The
principal was correct - the source my hubby gave was wrong.

It's the
1792 Militia Act.

The 1792 Militia Act


An Act more effectually to
provide for the national defence, by establishing an uniform militia
throughout the United States, 8 May 1792.

SEC. 1. That each and every
free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident
therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the
age of forty-five years, (except as hereinafter excepted,) shall,
severally and respectively, be enrolled in the militia by the captain or
commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen
shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this
act. And it shall, at all times hereafter, be the duty of every such
captain or commanding officer of a company, to enrol every such citizen,
as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the
age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years, and under
the age of forty-five years, (except as before excepted,) shall come to
reside within his bounds; and shall, without delay, notify such citizen
of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the
company, by whom such notice may be proved.


And so on, and so
forth......

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


For the whole thing.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria lairdside wrote:
Aren't all able bodied white males over the age of 18 and under
50 supposedly members of the militia anyway? My husband
loves to harp on about it and THINKS it may be Article 3
of the constitution. He wants to know when the government
plan to arm him (ie. Where's my gun and ammo?).
Hmmm... White males? Would that be excluding all blacks and latinos?
Looking at http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html"]h-
ttp://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html[/url] and
searching for the word "white" yields nothing. -- They show you how
detergents take out bloodstains. I think if you've got a T-shirt with
bloodstains all over it, maybe your laundry isn't your biggest
problem.

Yes, that would be excluding non-whites.

The
principal was correct - the source my hubby gave was wrong.

It's the
1792 Militia Act.

The 1792 Militia Act


An Act more effectually to
provide for the national defence, by establishing an uniform militia
throughout the United States, 8 May 1792.

SEC. 1. That each and every
free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident
therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the
age of forty-five years, (except as hereinafter excepted,) shall,
severally and respectively, be enrolled in the militia by the captain or
commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen
shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this
act. And it shall, at all times hereafter, be the duty of every such
captain or commanding officer of a company, to enrol every such citizen,
as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the
age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years, and under
the age of forty-five years, (except as before excepted,) shall come to
reside within his bounds; and shall, without delay, notify such citizen
of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the
company, by whom such notice may be proved.


And so on, and so
forth......

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm


For the whole thing.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Michael D. Young wrote: That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay. Actually I like this one! :-)

They keep saying the military is spread to thin around the world, so we
offer people the option of serving in the military for 3 or 5 years. If
you get an honorable discharge, then you get to stay and the option to
become a citizen.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Michael D. Young wrote: That should be Bush's guest work program. You're here illegally and are willing to take a bullet for the USA, then you can stay. Actually I like this one! :-)

They keep saying the military is spread to thin around the world, so we
offer people the option of serving in the military for 3 or 5 years. If
you get an honorable discharge, then you get to stay and the option to
become a citizen.

Originally posted by Rete Curious why it would make a
different what it was $200 or $2,000. Unless you want to file
separately, he would have to file jointly with you and then his interest
would be considered part of the joint income for tax purposes. It would
definitely mean a higher standard deductible for your return and that
$200, hopefully, won't put you into a higher tax bracket. Rete


I sort of went into this in another post, but basically, you
can't flip back and forth between married filing jointly and married
filing separately year to year. Because of tax issues regarding my
husbands self employment and profit from that coming up this year
(2004), on the advice of my accountant, I will be filing separately. The
only thing I wanted to know at the time I posted was whether we had to
even file a form for him since he made so little US interest income
(from a savings account btw) last year and in the UK he would not be
paying any taxes either because his UK income was so low for the year
and he had capital losses offsetting what little income he did have. I
found in the tax code where a USC doesn't have to file if income is at
or below the minimum of I believe $7800, but it doesn't say anything
about aliens - resident or non. My accountant is now looking into it and
I will post his answer whenever I get it.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Rete Curious why it would make a
different what it was $200 or $2,000. Unless you want to file
separately, he would have to file jointly with you and then his interest
would be considered part of the joint income for tax purposes. It would
definitely mean a higher standard deductible for your return and that
$200, hopefully, won't put you into a higher tax bracket. Rete


I sort of went into this in another post, but basically, you
can't flip back and forth between married filing jointly and married
filing separately year to year. Because of tax issues regarding my
husbands self employment and profit from that coming up this year
(2004), on the advice of my accountant, I will be filing separately. The
only thing I wanted to know at the time I posted was whether we had to
even file a form for him since he made so little US interest income
(from a savings account btw) last year and in the UK he would not be
paying any taxes either because his UK income was so low for the year
and he had capital losses offsetting what little income he did have. I
found in the tax code where a USC doesn't have to file if income is at
or below the minimum of I believe $7800, but it doesn't say anything
about aliens - resident or non. My accountant is now looking into it and
I will post his answer whenever I get it.

Leslie


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Slavery was legal 200 years ago. Things do and should change.


Originally posted by Mrraveltay Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMarkImpeach
him how exactly? If you carefully read my
name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised
Americans. Hi:
You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the
presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or
Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city
"government" after a fashion. Not to mention that DC has been
like this for over 200 years, so it
should be no big surprise for
people that decide to live there.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Slavery was legal 200 years ago. Things do and should change.


Originally posted by Mrraveltay Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by DCMarkImpeach
him how exactly? If you carefully read my
name you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised
Americans. Hi:
You DO have a partial franchise -- you can vote in the
presidential election. You can't vote for Congress or
Senate -- but they do let you have an elected city
"government" after a fashion. Not to mention that DC has been
like this for over 200 years, so it
should be no big surprise for
people that decide to live there.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Better roads that lead from one shopping center and subdivision to the
other? Better roads that are clogged in traffic 24/7? No thanks!

I
would not live in that suburban (broke) dirtball heaven called Maryland,
nor would I live in the concrete jungle (broke) redneck heaven called
Virginia if you paid me.

I am quite happy in the very cosmopolitan,
educated, cultural and interesting city of Washington. Assuming you
pick the right spots, one can go months without seeing a weasel
politicians or wannabe congressional staffer.

None of this is an excuse
to disenfranchise 300,000+ (mostly minority) citizens of the United
States.

However, if you persist in denying us representation, please
cut the taxation.


Originally posted by Paul Gani
"DCMark" <member6276@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:-
1221808.1075949915@britishexpats.com"]news:1221808.1075949915@britishex-
pats.com[/url]... Very partial. And our city government does
not have full soveriegnty nor is it fairly compensated for
all the federal land that is outside the tax rolls. Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue impeachment impossible. Seriously dude, move 5 miles in
any direction. Lower taxes, better roads, schools, services, etc...
Anyway, you're living on land stolen from Maryland. Not that we want
it back....
Paulgani


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Better roads that lead from one shopping center and subdivision to the
other? Better roads that are clogged in traffic 24/7? No thanks!

I
would not live in that suburban (broke) dirtball heaven called Maryland,
nor would I live in the concrete jungle (broke) redneck heaven called
Virginia if you paid me.

I am quite happy in the very cosmopolitan,
educated, cultural and interesting city of Washington. Assuming you
pick the right spots, one can go months without seeing a weasel
politicians or wannabe congressional staffer.

None of this is an excuse
to disenfranchise 300,000+ (mostly minority) citizens of the United
States.

However, if you persist in denying us representation, please
cut the taxation.


Originally posted by Paul Gani
"DCMark" <member6276@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:-
1221808.1075949915@britishexpats.com"]news:1221808.1075949915@britishex-
pats.com[/url]... Very partial. And our city government does
not have full soveriegnty nor is it fairly compensated for
all the federal land that is outside the tax rolls. Not having a senator or rep makes my ability to persue impeachment impossible. Seriously dude, move 5 miles in
any direction. Lower taxes, better roads, schools, services, etc...
Anyway, you're living on land stolen from Maryland. Not that we want
it back....
Paulgani


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

And what proof do you have that I have not done more? Do I have to list
my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew will allow me to
criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?

Trust me, lots of my time and money
are going into ridding us of this scum.

I passed by him this AM. Made
me shudder.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria DCMark
wrote: Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name
you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised
Americans. Also a lot can be done to raise awareness of your
viewpoint by policitcal activism. Surely if you live in DC I would
find it hard to believe you have not been exposed to such. My point
being, merely calling him a criminal in a Usenet newsgroup will do
little for you if you truly believe he is a criminal. There are much
better ways to get your message across. --
As a computer, I find
your faith in technology amusing.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

And what proof do you have that I have not done more? Do I have to list
my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew will allow me to
criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?

Trust me, lots of my time and money
are going into ridding us of this scum.

I passed by him this AM. Made
me shudder.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria DCMark
wrote: Impeach him how exactly? If you carefully read my name
you will see I am one of the TRULY disenfranchised
Americans. Also a lot can be done to raise awareness of your
viewpoint by policitcal activism. Surely if you live in DC I would
find it hard to believe you have not been exposed to such. My point
being, merely calling him a criminal in a Usenet newsgroup will do
little for you if you truly believe he is a criminal. There are much
better ways to get your message across. --
As a computer, I find
your faith in technology amusing.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

DCMark wrote:
Better roads that lead from one shopping center and subdivision to the other?

What is not to like? The shopping center, the subdivision or the road?
Better roads that are clogged in traffic 24/7? No thanks!

Everybody complains about traffic no matter where they are at. In most
cases people estimations about traffic are totally off base. In any
event you are only 5 miles from that which you complain about and unless
you "don't get out often" you're already in it.
I would not live in that suburban (broke) dirtball heaven called Maryland, nor would I live in the concrete jungle (broke) redneck heaven called Virginia if you paid me.

If you like where you're at then accept it's limitations. Actually I've
always heard there is a lot of crime there.
I am quite happy in the very cosmopolitan, educated, cultural and interesting city of Washington. Assuming you pick the right spots, one can go months without seeing a weasel politicians or wannabe congressional staffer.

How paradoxal this sounds.
None of this is an excuse to disenfranchise 300,000+ (mostly minority) citizens of the United States.

They chose to live there.
However, if you persist in denying us representation, please cut the taxation.

As one of my funny lines says "Taxation with representation isn't all
that hot either!".
--
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.

DCMark wrote:
Better roads that lead from one shopping center and subdivision to the other?

What is not to like? The shopping center, the subdivision or the road?
Better roads that are clogged in traffic 24/7? No thanks!

Everybody complains about traffic no matter where they are at. In most
cases people estimations about traffic are totally off base. In any
event you are only 5 miles from that which you complain about and unless
you "don't get out often" you're already in it.
I would not live in that suburban (broke) dirtball heaven called Maryland, nor would I live in the concrete jungle (broke) redneck heaven called Virginia if you paid me.

If you like where you're at then accept it's limitations. Actually I've
always heard there is a lot of crime there.
I am quite happy in the very cosmopolitan, educated, cultural and interesting city of Washington. Assuming you pick the right spots, one can go months without seeing a weasel politicians or wannabe congressional staffer.

How paradoxal this sounds.
None of this is an excuse to disenfranchise 300,000+ (mostly minority) citizens of the United States.

They chose to live there.
However, if you persist in denying us representation, please cut the taxation.

As one of my funny lines says "Taxation with representation isn't all
that hot either!".
--
Copywight 1994 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.

DCMark wrote:
And what proof do you have that I have not done more?

What proof do I have that you have done anything? (a clue - zippo!) What
do you think I need to somehow research you on the Internet given only
the handle of "dcmark"?!? Pulleease! I have better things to do with my
time.
Do I have to list my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew will allow me to criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?

You don't have to do anything. However you could "put your money where
your mouth is" or you could simply participate in ad homien attacks. I
see you chose to the later. How convenient.
Trust me, lots of my time and money are going into ridding us of this scum.

Otherwise known as "it ain't worth it to me so instead I'll just *****
about it". Seen it a million times.

--
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.

DCMark wrote:
And what proof do you have that I have not done more?

What proof do I have that you have done anything? (a clue - zippo!) What
do you think I need to somehow research you on the Internet given only
the handle of "dcmark"?!? Pulleease! I have better things to do with my
time.
Do I have to list my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew will allow me to criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?

You don't have to do anything. However you could "put your money where
your mouth is" or you could simply participate in ad homien attacks. I
see you chose to the later. How convenient.
Trust me, lots of my time and money are going into ridding us of this scum.

Otherwise known as "it ain't worth it to me so instead I'll just *****
about it". Seen it a million times.

--
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Scout: tasty
but deadly.'
I sort of went into this in another post, but basically, youcan't flip back and forth between married filing jointly and marriedfiling separately year to year.

Are you sure about that?

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Scout: tasty
but deadly.'
I sort of went into this in another post, but basically, youcan't flip back and forth between married filing jointly and marriedfiling separately year to year.

Are you sure about that?

Cheers,

Marco

You questioned why I attacked Bush on the INternet. I am telling you I
spend alot of my efforts working agaist him. Your assumption that I
only post on the USENET is false.


Originally posted by
Andrew Defaria DCMark wrote: And what proof do you
have that I have not done more? What proof do I have that you
have done anything? (a clue - zippo!) What do you think I need to
somehow research you on the Internet given only the handle of
"dcmark"?!? Pulleease! I have better things to do with my time. Do I have to list my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew
will allow me to criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?
You don't have to do anything. However you could "put your money
where your mouth is" or you could simply participate in ad homien
attacks. I see you chose to the later. How convenient.
Trust me, lots of my time and money are going into ridding us of this
scum. Otherwise known as "it ain't worth it to
me so instead I'll just ***** about it". Seen it a million times.
--
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

You questioned why I attacked Bush on the INternet. I am telling you I
spend alot of my efforts working agaist him. Your assumption that I
only post on the USENET is false.


Originally posted by
Andrew Defaria DCMark wrote: And what proof do you
have that I have not done more? What proof do I have that you
have done anything? (a clue - zippo!) What do you think I need to
somehow research you on the Internet given only the handle of
"dcmark"?!? Pulleease! I have better things to do with my time. Do I have to list my anti-Bush bona fides before the great Andrew
will allow me to criticize Herr Bush on the USENET?
You don't have to do anything. However you could "put your money
where your mouth is" or you could simply participate in ad homien
attacks. I see you chose to the later. How convenient.
Trust me, lots of my time and money are going into ridding us of this
scum. Otherwise known as "it ain't worth it to
me so instead I'll just ***** about it". Seen it a million times.
--
Windows: Just another pane in the glass.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S. thoroughly they won't be
afraid of getting shot?

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: It's also important that people
understand the image that the United States projects to
the rest of the world. Most countries do not have an
enormous military. Many countries do not even have police officers
that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of aggression
and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing.
Gosh you'd think an intending immigrant might be motivated to
doing a little research about the place he is intending on living...
--
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S. thoroughly they won't be
afraid of getting shot?

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: It's also important that people
understand the image that the United States projects to
the rest of the world. Most countries do not have an
enormous military. Many countries do not even have police officers
that carry firearms. Some cultures find the level of aggression
and violence in the U.S. frightening and disturbing.
Gosh you'd think an intending immigrant might be motivated to
doing a little research about the place he is intending on living...
--
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
However, this war is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out
of power, but have we truly helped this
country in any other way? I'd say not. I'd say we probably
have. To what extent remains to be seen. The very fact that Saddam is
no longer in power can do much toward progressing the country in
general. Many people there are very happy that we did what we did. I
also believe that we are doing a certain amount of rebuilding too.


That's all well and good, after the fact. We didn't
invade Iraq to promote their progression. We invaded because of the
alleged WMD. There would be very little to rebuild if we hadn't
levelled the country to begin with.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
However, this war is pointless - yes, we took a bad man out
of power, but have we truly helped this
country in any other way? I'd say not. I'd say we probably
have. To what extent remains to be seen. The very fact that Saddam is
no longer in power can do much toward progressing the country in
general. Many people there are very happy that we did what we did. I
also believe that we are doing a certain amount of rebuilding too.


That's all well and good, after the fact. We didn't
invade Iraq to promote their progression. We invaded because of the
alleged WMD. There would be very little to rebuild if we hadn't
levelled the country to begin with.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

2 things you should never discuss in depth on the forum Politics and
Religion!

Tempers always flare!


--
James Davidson


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

2 things you should never discuss in depth on the forum Politics and
Religion!

Tempers always flare!


--
James Davidson


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by mcjimbo 2 things you should never
discuss in depth on the forum Politics and Religion! Tempers always
flare!

:D:D:D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by mcjimbo 2 things you should never
discuss in depth on the forum Politics and Religion! Tempers always
flare!

:D:D:D


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.

People here have talked about all the 'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy
here in the USA even though they don't get to vote.

I might point out that the Patriot Act et. al. quite neatly removed
the protection of the Bill of Rights for non-citizens, even those such
as myself who have followed every legal immigration requirement to the
letter.

In fact, as a non-citizen, I enjoy very few protections. In fact, as
the law stands, I could be arrested, detained indefinitely, my assets
siezed and deported, basically at the whim of the powers that be, with
no more cause than being 'suspected' of terrorism. And for those who
will cry "those laws weren't meant for nice non-Arab boys like you" I
reply that history teaches us that laws such as these are inevitably
misapplied when it becomes convenient to do so.

On the other hand, I do have the obligation to pay taxes, an irony I
find especially keen as a Brit, considering the little fracas we had
with you guys around 1776 over the small phrase "no taxation without
representation." In fact, I have the distinct pleasure of paying
income tax to the Federal government, the State of New York and the
City of New York, none of whom allow me any voice in return for my tax
dollars.

But this is old news. The discussion at hand is that of conscription.
And I feel I must say this: to those who think that I enjoy 'enough'
rights simply by living in America to 'compensate' me for the fact
that I may get drafted, I say with all due respect: you're off your
rocker.

In my view, it is simply wrong, unquestionably wrong, to be drafted,
to be put int the position of giving up my life and liberty, at the
say-so of leaders in which I played no part electing. And Mr.
Folinskyinla, being made a citizen *after the fact* is not
compensation. The point is this, simply: if an official is to be given
power over me, to send me off to my potential death, then I should
have had some say in giving that power to him *before* he sent me off,
not *after*.

One day I hope my AOS will be successful and then I will certainly
apply for citizenship, fully cogniscent of the fact that I will be
given the right to vote *and* the duty to be sent to war on behalf of
this great country. That's a fair and equitable trade. Until that
happy day, any attempt to deprive me of my life and liberty by
conscription, is morally wrong. They had a name for that once upon a
time - the press gang.

Cheers,

Marco

I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.

People here have talked about all the 'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy
here in the USA even though they don't get to vote.

I might point out that the Patriot Act et. al. quite neatly removed
the protection of the Bill of Rights for non-citizens, even those such
as myself who have followed every legal immigration requirement to the
letter.

In fact, as a non-citizen, I enjoy very few protections. In fact, as
the law stands, I could be arrested, detained indefinitely, my assets
siezed and deported, basically at the whim of the powers that be, with
no more cause than being 'suspected' of terrorism. And for those who
will cry "those laws weren't meant for nice non-Arab boys like you" I
reply that history teaches us that laws such as these are inevitably
misapplied when it becomes convenient to do so.

On the other hand, I do have the obligation to pay taxes, an irony I
find especially keen as a Brit, considering the little fracas we had
with you guys around 1776 over the small phrase "no taxation without
representation." In fact, I have the distinct pleasure of paying
income tax to the Federal government, the State of New York and the
City of New York, none of whom allow me any voice in return for my tax
dollars.

But this is old news. The discussion at hand is that of conscription.
And I feel I must say this: to those who think that I enjoy 'enough'
rights simply by living in America to 'compensate' me for the fact
that I may get drafted, I say with all due respect: you're off your
rocker.

In my view, it is simply wrong, unquestionably wrong, to be drafted,
to be put int the position of giving up my life and liberty, at the
say-so of leaders in which I played no part electing. And Mr.
Folinskyinla, being made a citizen *after the fact* is not
compensation. The point is this, simply: if an official is to be given
power over me, to send me off to my potential death, then I should
have had some say in giving that power to him *before* he sent me off,
not *after*.

One day I hope my AOS will be successful and then I will certainly
apply for citizenship, fully cogniscent of the fact that I will be
given the right to vote *and* the duty to be sent to war on behalf of
this great country. That's a fair and equitable trade. Until that
happy day, any attempt to deprive me of my life and liberty by
conscription, is morally wrong. They had a name for that once upon a
time - the press gang.

Cheers,

Marco

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:t33520luibgkko80oamebslbobauggg5kh@4ax.com... I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.

American citizens who were drafted fresh after turning 18 also did not get
an opportunity to choose their leaders. They also received their rights
"after the fact".

As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in how
tax revenue should be spent. That does not change the fact that the tax
dollars are actually spent on ALL of the residents of that particular
geographical area, whether they are allowed to vote or not. Likewise, by
choosing to live in a geographical area, you have an obligation to
contribute towards that area's defense.

LPRs or pending LPRs always have the option of departing the geographical
area represented by the United States, thus relieving themselves from having
to contribute to the revenues and defense of their (former) residence.

Paulgani

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:t33520luibgkko80oamebslbobauggg5kh@4ax.com... I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.

American citizens who were drafted fresh after turning 18 also did not get
an opportunity to choose their leaders. They also received their rights
"after the fact".

As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in how
tax revenue should be spent. That does not change the fact that the tax
dollars are actually spent on ALL of the residents of that particular
geographical area, whether they are allowed to vote or not. Likewise, by
choosing to live in a geographical area, you have an obligation to
contribute towards that area's defense.

LPRs or pending LPRs always have the option of departing the geographical
area represented by the United States, thus relieving themselves from having
to contribute to the revenues and defense of their (former) residence.

Paulgani

Originally posted by c I have to fall into the "rights
vs obligations" camp here. People here have talked about all the
'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy here in the USA even though they don't
get to vote. I might point out that the Patriot Act et. al. quite
neatly removed the protection of the Bill of Rights for non-citizens,
even those such as myself who have followed every legal immigration
requirement to the letter. In fact, as a non-citizen, I enjoy
very few protections. In fact, as the law stands, I could be arrested,
detained indefinitely, my assets siezed and deported, basically at the
whim of the powers that be, with no more cause than being 'suspected'
of terrorism. And for those who will cry "those laws weren't meant for
nice non-Arab boys like you" I reply that history teaches us that laws
such as these are inevitably misapplied when it becomes convenient to
do so. On the other hand, I do have the obligation to pay taxes, an
irony I find especially keen as a Brit, considering the little fracas
we had with you guys around 1776 over the small phrase "no taxation
without representation." In fact, I have the distinct pleasure of
paying income tax to the Federal government, the State of New York and
the City of New York, none of whom allow me any voice in return for my
tax dollars. But this is old news. The discussion at hand is that
of conscription. And I feel I must say this: to those who think that I
enjoy 'enough' rights simply by living in America to 'compensate' me
for the fact that I may get drafted, I say with all due respect:
you're off your rocker. In my view, it is simply wrong,
unquestionably wrong, to be drafted, to be put int the position of
giving up my life and liberty, at the say-so of leaders in which I
played no part electing. And Mr. Folinskyinla, being made a citizen
*after the fact* is not compensation. The point is this, simply: if an
official is to be given power over me, to send me off to my potential
death, then I should have had some say in giving that power to him
*before* he sent me off, not *after*. One day I hope my AOS will
be successful and then I will certainly apply for citizenship, fully
cogniscent of the fact that I will be given the right to vote *and*
the duty to be sent to war on behalf of this great country. That's a
fair and equitable trade. Until that happy day, any attempt to deprive
me of my life and liberty by conscription, is morally wrong. They had
a name for that once upon a time - the press gang. Cheers,
Marco

Hi:

It pays to remember at times that the Declaration
of Independence has no LEGAL signifigance. There may have been reasons
for the Revolution -- but it did not make it into the law.

BTW, the
income tax was intially ruled unconstitutional as a "direct" tax by the
Supreme Court. It required a constitutional amendment to get back in
place.

Getting back to the Declaration, read the list of grievances
against HRM George III -- one is the imposistion of restrictions on
immigration! I've found that one somewhat amusing for some years now.


Also, aliens have the absolute right to avoid military service. They
can't be FORCED to enter the military -- and the only penalty that is
imposed is a bar to naturalization [and concomitant with that -- future
immigration]. [One of my very first cases invovled a Canadian serving
with the Marines in 'Nam when his grandfather died. He was denied
compassionate leave, so he sought discharge on the basis of alienage.
Although he was serving in a combat zone, he was immediately granted a
general discharge. He then went to Canada -- and remained there for
three months -- when I got on appeal, it was a "Fleuti" "breif, innocent
& casual departure" type of case since he was barred from "entry" into
the United States.].


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by c I have to fall into the "rights
vs obligations" camp here. People here have talked about all the
'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy here in the USA even though they don't
get to vote. I might point out that the Patriot Act et. al. quite
neatly removed the protection of the Bill of Rights for non-citizens,
even those such as myself who have followed every legal immigration
requirement to the letter. In fact, as a non-citizen, I enjoy
very few protections. In fact, as the law stands, I could be arrested,
detained indefinitely, my assets siezed and deported, basically at the
whim of the powers that be, with no more cause than being 'suspected'
of terrorism. And for those who will cry "those laws weren't meant for
nice non-Arab boys like you" I reply that history teaches us that laws
such as these are inevitably misapplied when it becomes convenient to
do so. On the other hand, I do have the obligation to pay taxes, an
irony I find especially keen as a Brit, considering the little fracas
we had with you guys around 1776 over the small phrase "no taxation
without representation." In fact, I have the distinct pleasure of
paying income tax to the Federal government, the State of New York and
the City of New York, none of whom allow me any voice in return for my
tax dollars. But this is old news. The discussion at hand is that
of conscription. And I feel I must say this: to those who think that I
enjoy 'enough' rights simply by living in America to 'compensate' me
for the fact that I may get drafted, I say with all due respect:
you're off your rocker. In my view, it is simply wrong,
unquestionably wrong, to be drafted, to be put int the position of
giving up my life and liberty, at the say-so of leaders in which I
played no part electing. And Mr. Folinskyinla, being made a citizen
*after the fact* is not compensation. The point is this, simply: if an
official is to be given power over me, to send me off to my potential
death, then I should have had some say in giving that power to him
*before* he sent me off, not *after*. One day I hope my AOS will
be successful and then I will certainly apply for citizenship, fully
cogniscent of the fact that I will be given the right to vote *and*
the duty to be sent to war on behalf of this great country. That's a
fair and equitable trade. Until that happy day, any attempt to deprive
me of my life and liberty by conscription, is morally wrong. They had
a name for that once upon a time - the press gang. Cheers,
Marco

Hi:

It pays to remember at times that the Declaration
of Independence has no LEGAL signifigance. There may have been reasons
for the Revolution -- but it did not make it into the law.

BTW, the
income tax was intially ruled unconstitutional as a "direct" tax by the
Supreme Court. It required a constitutional amendment to get back in
place.

Getting back to the Declaration, read the list of grievances
against HRM George III -- one is the imposistion of restrictions on
immigration! I've found that one somewhat amusing for some years now.


Also, aliens have the absolute right to avoid military service. They
can't be FORCED to enter the military -- and the only penalty that is
imposed is a bar to naturalization [and concomitant with that -- future
immigration]. [One of my very first cases invovled a Canadian serving
with the Marines in 'Nam when his grandfather died. He was denied
compassionate leave, so he sought discharge on the basis of alienage.
Although he was serving in a combat zone, he was immediately granted a
general discharge. He then went to Canada -- and remained there for
three months -- when I got on appeal, it was a "Fleuti" "breif, innocent
& casual departure" type of case since he was barred from "entry" into
the United States.].


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
<c@y.com> wrote in messagenews:t33520luibgkko80oamebslbobauggg5kh@4ax .com... I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.American citizens who were drafted fresh after turning 18 also did not getan opportunity to choose their leaders. They also received their rights"after the fact".

Then perhaps that issue should be addressed also. Rather than saying
"A sucks, but B sucks too, so we should just live with both A and B"
perhaps we might focus on fixing both A and B.

Since Congress is technically the body that declares war (our
President's opinion notwithstanding) then perhaps a citizen should not
be eligible for the draft until he/she has had at least one
opportunity to vote for a Congressperson.
As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in howtax revenue should be spent.

Exactly. And I would like to have such a say, direct or indirect. Your
point?
That does not change the fact that the taxdollars are actually spent on ALL of the residents of that particulargeographical area, whether they are allowed to vote or not.

Again, your point is unclear to me.
Likewise, bychoosing to live in a geographical area, you have an obligation tocontribute towards that area's defense.

I'm not talking about whether or not the obligations exist. Clearly
they do. I'm talking about whether the obligations are morally right.

All you've said, basically, is that I have an obligation to pay taxes
and an obligation to lay my life down for the country despite being a
non-citizen. I'm not arguing those facts. Those obligations exist in
law. I just happen to hold that second obligation morally
indefensible. The first one too, to a far lesser degree, but that's a
whole different discussion.
LPRs or pending LPRs always have the option of departing the geographicalarea represented by the United States, thus relieving themselves from havingto contribute to the revenues and defense of their (former) residence.

Elegantly veiled, but the meaning is clear.

In my case, the logical conclusion of your position is that, if I were
to be drafted, I would have to choose between my life or my home/wife
(I'm married to a USC.)

If you feel this is a proper and reasonable decision to be burdened
with, when I have no vote to change such an egregious state of affairs
and no protection from the Bill of Rights, then we must simply agree
to differ, sir.

Like I say, the day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be
happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them.

Let's also consder the fact that some countries consider fighting in
another country's armed forces ground for withdrawals of citizenship.
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps
even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US
military and lose their home citizenship as a result! Not a very
equitable state of affairs, IMO, and one that does not reflect the
principles on which this great nation was founded.

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
<c@y.com> wrote in messagenews:t33520luibgkko80oamebslbobauggg5kh@4ax .com... I have to fall into the "rights vs obligations" camp here.American citizens who were drafted fresh after turning 18 also did not getan opportunity to choose their leaders. They also received their rights"after the fact".

Then perhaps that issue should be addressed also. Rather than saying
"A sucks, but B sucks too, so we should just live with both A and B"
perhaps we might focus on fixing both A and B.

Since Congress is technically the body that declares war (our
President's opinion notwithstanding) then perhaps a citizen should not
be eligible for the draft until he/she has had at least one
opportunity to vote for a Congressperson.
As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in howtax revenue should be spent.

Exactly. And I would like to have such a say, direct or indirect. Your
point?
That does not change the fact that the taxdollars are actually spent on ALL of the residents of that particulargeographical area, whether they are allowed to vote or not.

Again, your point is unclear to me.
Likewise, bychoosing to live in a geographical area, you have an obligation tocontribute towards that area's defense.

I'm not talking about whether or not the obligations exist. Clearly
they do. I'm talking about whether the obligations are morally right.

All you've said, basically, is that I have an obligation to pay taxes
and an obligation to lay my life down for the country despite being a
non-citizen. I'm not arguing those facts. Those obligations exist in
law. I just happen to hold that second obligation morally
indefensible. The first one too, to a far lesser degree, but that's a
whole different discussion.
LPRs or pending LPRs always have the option of departing the geographicalarea represented by the United States, thus relieving themselves from havingto contribute to the revenues and defense of their (former) residence.

Elegantly veiled, but the meaning is clear.

In my case, the logical conclusion of your position is that, if I were
to be drafted, I would have to choose between my life or my home/wife
(I'm married to a USC.)

If you feel this is a proper and reasonable decision to be burdened
with, when I have no vote to change such an egregious state of affairs
and no protection from the Bill of Rights, then we must simply agree
to differ, sir.

Like I say, the day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be
happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them.

Let's also consder the fact that some countries consider fighting in
another country's armed forces ground for withdrawals of citizenship.
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps
even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US
military and lose their home citizenship as a result! Not a very
equitable state of affairs, IMO, and one that does not reflect the
principles on which this great nation was founded.

Cheers,

Marco

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:m975201v5udt86pl4v7ap9i0upmotng19j@4ax.com... Since Congress is technically the body that declares war (our President's opinion notwithstanding) then perhaps a citizen should not be eligible for the draft until he/she has had at least one opportunity to vote for a Congressperson.

A nice idea, but let's face it - it would be highly symbolic. There are
many injustices in the world, and I prefer to concentrate on the ones with
more significant bearings.

Also ex-convicts cannot vote - should they be exempt from the obligations to
pay taxes and protect their homeland? Nonsense.
As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in
howtax revenue should be spent. Exactly. And I would like to have such a say, direct or indirect. Your point?

Now you see, this is the perfect opportunity for me to promote my "all
migration laws are immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move to
all countries without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights as
other local residents, much like USC who move from one American state to
another get almost immediate representation rights in their new home state.
I just happen to hold that second obligation morally indefensible.

If your residence (and I mean the country you permanently live in, not your
personal home) is attacked, I find it morally indefensible for you to
state - "well, I wish to continue to live here permanently, but I do not
wish to be required to contribute to my new home country's defense."
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US military and lose their home citizenship as a result!

Nonsense. The draft laws cover *residents* (illegal or not), not temporary
visitors.

Bottom line - if America is your permanent home (whatever your legal
status), you are morally obligated to pay taxes and contribute to its
defense.

Paulgani

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:m975201v5udt86pl4v7ap9i0upmotng19j@4ax.com... Since Congress is technically the body that declares war (our President's opinion notwithstanding) then perhaps a citizen should not be eligible for the draft until he/she has had at least one opportunity to vote for a Congressperson.

A nice idea, but let's face it - it would be highly symbolic. There are
many injustices in the world, and I prefer to concentrate on the ones with
more significant bearings.

Also ex-convicts cannot vote - should they be exempt from the obligations to
pay taxes and protect their homeland? Nonsense.
As for taxes, representation merely gives one a (very) indirect say in
howtax revenue should be spent. Exactly. And I would like to have such a say, direct or indirect. Your point?

Now you see, this is the perfect opportunity for me to promote my "all
migration laws are immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move to
all countries without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights as
other local residents, much like USC who move from one American state to
another get almost immediate representation rights in their new home state.
I just happen to hold that second obligation morally indefensible.

If your residence (and I mean the country you permanently live in, not your
personal home) is attacked, I find it morally indefensible for you to
state - "well, I wish to continue to live here permanently, but I do not
wish to be required to contribute to my new home country's defense."
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US military and lose their home citizenship as a result!

Nonsense. The draft laws cover *residents* (illegal or not), not temporary
visitors.

Bottom line - if America is your permanent home (whatever your legal
status), you are morally obligated to pay taxes and contribute to its
defense.

Paulgani

Originally posted by c Like I say, the day I get the
vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the
rest of them.

Hi Marco,
As Folinskyinla has posted a couple
of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ’t be forced to serve.

But
as to your statement above, if you look at the oath you would have to
take when applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be
willing to “pick up your M-16” “before” you are granted the greatest
gift the government can give to you.

The oath is, “I hereby declare,
on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or
citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms
on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will
perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States
when required by the law; that I will perform work of national
importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; so help me God”.

When determining if one is truly willing
to serve the United States, the USCIS will take into account whether or
not someone of the appropriate age has registered for selective service
before naturalization. They also take into account whether or not a
person has already been discharged from the Armed Forces, or whether or
not a person has deserted from the Armed Forces.

Now of course, one
might be able to have the oath modified to omit the words “to bear arms
on behalf of the U.S. when required by law” however one would need to
provide sufficient evidence to persuade the USCIS that one is opposed to
fighting on behalf of the U.S. due to religious beliefs or religious
training. To carry this on further, if the USCIS is persuaded that one
is opposed to “any” type of service in the Armed Forces because of
oneÂ’s religious training or beliefs, one may even omit the words (from
the oath), “to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the
U.S. when required under law”.

Since you have already stated that you
would be “happy to pick up your M-16” once you get the right to vote,
I guess you wonÂ’t be able to weasel out due to religious training or
beliefs. But even still, you donÂ’t have to serve, you donÂ’t have to
ever apply for U.S. citizenship, and quite frankly, you donÂ’t have to
live in the U.S. if you donÂ’t want to. Nobody is forcing you to do any
of these things.

IÂ’m sure you will find Simpsons reruns being shown
in other countries :-).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by c Like I say, the day I get the
vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the
rest of them.

Hi Marco,
As Folinskyinla has posted a couple
of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ’t be forced to serve.

But
as to your statement above, if you look at the oath you would have to
take when applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be
willing to “pick up your M-16” “before” you are granted the greatest
gift the government can give to you.

The oath is, “I hereby declare,
on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or
citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms
on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will
perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States
when required by the law; that I will perform work of national
importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; so help me God”.

When determining if one is truly willing
to serve the United States, the USCIS will take into account whether or
not someone of the appropriate age has registered for selective service
before naturalization. They also take into account whether or not a
person has already been discharged from the Armed Forces, or whether or
not a person has deserted from the Armed Forces.

Now of course, one
might be able to have the oath modified to omit the words “to bear arms
on behalf of the U.S. when required by law” however one would need to
provide sufficient evidence to persuade the USCIS that one is opposed to
fighting on behalf of the U.S. due to religious beliefs or religious
training. To carry this on further, if the USCIS is persuaded that one
is opposed to “any” type of service in the Armed Forces because of
oneÂ’s religious training or beliefs, one may even omit the words (from
the oath), “to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the
U.S. when required under law”.

Since you have already stated that you
would be “happy to pick up your M-16” once you get the right to vote,
I guess you wonÂ’t be able to weasel out due to religious training or
beliefs. But even still, you donÂ’t have to serve, you donÂ’t have to
ever apply for U.S. citizenship, and quite frankly, you donÂ’t have to
live in the U.S. if you donÂ’t want to. Nobody is forcing you to do any
of these things.

IÂ’m sure you will find Simpsons reruns being shown
in other countries :-).


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Paul Gani Now you see, this is the
perfect opportunity for me to promote my "all migration laws are
immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move to all countries
without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights as other
local residents, much like USC who move from one American state to
another get almost immediate representation rights in their new home
state.

Just curious Paul, are you a Libertarian?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Paul Gani Now you see, this is the
perfect opportunity for me to promote my "all migration laws are
immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move to all countries
without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights as other
local residents, much like USC who move from one American state to
another get almost immediate representation rights in their new home
state.

Just curious Paul, are you a Libertarian?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Leslie66 wrote:
Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S. thoroughly they won't be afraid of getting shot?

Come on Leslie. Surely you're not that dense! Meaning they would not be
that surprised that they would be required to register with selective
service. Meaning they would not be that naive to think that there was no
possibility that they might be asked to serve. I not saying they would
not be afraid of getting shot. I'm saying they could be informed about
what they are getting themselves into.
--
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Leslie66 wrote:
Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S. thoroughly they won't be afraid of getting shot?

Come on Leslie. Surely you're not that dense! Meaning they would not be
that surprised that they would be required to register with selective
service. Meaning they would not be that naive to think that there was no
possibility that they might be asked to serve. I not saying they would
not be afraid of getting shot. I'm saying they could be informed about
what they are getting themselves into.
--
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Leslie66 wrote:
That's all well and good, after the fact. We didn't invade Iraq to promote their progression.

How do you know this?
We invaded because of the alleged WMD.

That was one stated reasons. Do you think it was the only reason?
There would be very little to rebuild if we hadn't levelled the country to begin with.

We did not level the entire country, nor even most of it.

--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

Leslie66 wrote:
That's all well and good, after the fact. We didn't invade Iraq to promote their progression.

How do you know this?
We invaded because of the alleged WMD.

That was one stated reasons. Do you think it was the only reason?
There would be very little to rebuild if we hadn't levelled the country to begin with.

We did not level the entire country, nor even most of it.

--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

Marco,

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the little fracas circa
1776 was not between the Brits and "you guys". At the time we guys were
Brits also, and our first preference was to stay Brits. However, as
Brits, since we enjoyed the right to pay taxes but not the right to
vote, some of us opted for Plan B. It was far from a unanimous
decision.

Tell me about the irony again after you become a US citizen
if, as a citizen, you still don't have the right to vote.

Regards, JEff


Originally posted by c I have to fall into the
"rights vs obligations" camp here. People here have talked about
all the 'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy here in the USA even though
they don't get to vote. ... On the other hand, I do have the
obligation to pay taxes, an irony I find especially keen as a Brit,
considering the little fracas we had with you guys around 1776 over
the small phrase "no taxation without representation." ...
Cheers,
Marco


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Marco,

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the little fracas circa
1776 was not between the Brits and "you guys". At the time we guys were
Brits also, and our first preference was to stay Brits. However, as
Brits, since we enjoyed the right to pay taxes but not the right to
vote, some of us opted for Plan B. It was far from a unanimous
decision.

Tell me about the irony again after you become a US citizen
if, as a citizen, you still don't have the right to vote.

Regards, JEff


Originally posted by c I have to fall into the
"rights vs obligations" camp here. People here have talked about
all the 'rights' that LPRs/AOSers enjoy here in the USA even though
they don't get to vote. ... On the other hand, I do have the
obligation to pay taxes, an irony I find especially keen as a Brit,
considering the little fracas we had with you guys around 1776 over
the small phrase "no taxation without representation." ...
Cheers,
Marco


--
Of course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry)


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
Also ex-convicts cannot vote - should they be exempt from the obligations topay taxes and protect their homeland? Nonsense.

Incorrect. Felons lose their right to vote only whilst serving their
sentence/probation/parole. After that, the right is restored. Which is
as it should be.
Now you see, this is the perfect opportunity for me to promote my "allmigration laws are immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move toall countries without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights asother local residents, much like USC who move from one American state toanother get almost immediate representation rights in their new home state.

Fine. I'd go along with that. Give me ALL the rights of a citizen -
most especially the vote and the Bill of Rights - and I will gladly
undertake the concomitant obligations.
I just happen to hold that second obligation morally indefensible.If your residence (and I mean the country you permanently live in, not yourpersonal home) is attacked, I find it morally indefensible for you tostate - "well, I wish to continue to live here permanently, but I do notwish to be required to contribute to my new home country's defense."

This is not at all what I stated. I'm not saying whether I *wish* to
contribute to the defense. What I am saying is that I don't wish to be
*coerced* into the obligations of citizenship without first receiving
the rights of citizenship. This is still government of the people,
right?

I may very well decide, if circumstances warrant it, to enlist in the
defense of this nation voluntarily. That's my choice. What I don't
want is to have a government that I didn't elect put me in a position
that could deprive me of my life and liberty.

The day I voluntarily take the oath of allegiance, without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, then the government can send me off
to war as it sees fit, because I will take the oath knowing full well
that this may be one of the consequences.
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US military and lose their home citizenship as a result!Nonsense. The draft laws cover *residents* (illegal or not), not temporaryvisitors.

Define temporary, please. Is a student 'temporary?' A student that has
been in the USA for more than a year is eligible for the draft. I come
for the Computer Science degree, but I stay for the snazzy khaki
uniforms.
Bottom line - if America is your permanent home (whatever your legalstatus), you are morally obligated to pay taxes and contribute to itsdefense.

Bottom line: that's an opinion, not a fact. One I happen to disagree
with. In my view the state has an equal moral obligation to afford
full rights to those of whom it would demand the ultimate sacrifice.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to differ.

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
Also ex-convicts cannot vote - should they be exempt from the obligations topay taxes and protect their homeland? Nonsense.

Incorrect. Felons lose their right to vote only whilst serving their
sentence/probation/parole. After that, the right is restored. Which is
as it should be.
Now you see, this is the perfect opportunity for me to promote my "allmigration laws are immoral" agenda. All people should be able to move toall countries without restriction and immediately obtain the same rights asother local residents, much like USC who move from one American state toanother get almost immediate representation rights in their new home state.

Fine. I'd go along with that. Give me ALL the rights of a citizen -
most especially the vote and the Bill of Rights - and I will gladly
undertake the concomitant obligations.
I just happen to hold that second obligation morally indefensible.If your residence (and I mean the country you permanently live in, not yourpersonal home) is attacked, I find it morally indefensible for you tostate - "well, I wish to continue to live here permanently, but I do notwish to be required to contribute to my new home country's defense."

This is not at all what I stated. I'm not saying whether I *wish* to
contribute to the defense. What I am saying is that I don't wish to be
*coerced* into the obligations of citizenship without first receiving
the rights of citizenship. This is still government of the people,
right?

I may very well decide, if circumstances warrant it, to enlist in the
defense of this nation voluntarily. That's my choice. What I don't
want is to have a government that I didn't elect put me in a position
that could deprive me of my life and liberty.

The day I voluntarily take the oath of allegiance, without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, then the government can send me off
to war as it sees fit, because I will take the oath knowing full well
that this may be one of the consequences.
Under the current rules, a foreigner could come to the USA, perhaps even as a tourist or a student, then be forcibly drafted into the US military and lose their home citizenship as a result!Nonsense. The draft laws cover *residents* (illegal or not), not temporaryvisitors.

Define temporary, please. Is a student 'temporary?' A student that has
been in the USA for more than a year is eligible for the draft. I come
for the Computer Science degree, but I stay for the snazzy khaki
uniforms.
Bottom line - if America is your permanent home (whatever your legalstatus), you are morally obligated to pay taxes and contribute to itsdefense.

Bottom line: that's an opinion, not a fact. One I happen to disagree
with. In my view the state has an equal moral obligation to afford
full rights to those of whom it would demand the ultimate sacrifice.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to differ.

Cheers,

Marco

OK, that makes more sense. Yes, if I immigrated to another country I
would assume that I would be subject to their military draft
requirements. So that's his worst crime, he didn't pay attention to the
requirements. I think that is a common problem that occurs when the
American petitioner is doing all of the paperwork and research and the
foreign spouse/fiance has elected to take a more passive role in their
own immigration. However, whether he found out sooner or later, his
reaction would probably be the same. Either way he's afraid of getting
shot at.


Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S.
thoroughly they won't be afraid of getting shot?
Come on Leslie. Surely you're not that dense! Meaning they would not be
that surprised that they would be required to register with selective
service. Meaning they would not be that naive to think that there was
no possibility that they might be asked to serve. I not saying they
would not be afraid of getting shot. I'm saying they could be
informed about what they are getting themselves into. --
Make it
idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

OK, that makes more sense. Yes, if I immigrated to another country I
would assume that I would be subject to their military draft
requirements. So that's his worst crime, he didn't pay attention to the
requirements. I think that is a common problem that occurs when the
American petitioner is doing all of the paperwork and research and the
foreign spouse/fiance has elected to take a more passive role in their
own immigration. However, whether he found out sooner or later, his
reaction would probably be the same. Either way he's afraid of getting
shot at.


Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: Meaning what? If they investigate the U.S.
thoroughly they won't be afraid of getting shot?
Come on Leslie. Surely you're not that dense! Meaning they would not be
that surprised that they would be required to register with selective
service. Meaning they would not be that naive to think that there was
no possibility that they might be asked to serve. I not saying they
would not be afraid of getting shot. I'm saying they could be
informed about what they are getting themselves into. --
Make it
idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:idc520dknn2evpvf7lr5l2sdu5t29m3851@4ax.com... What I am saying is that I don't wish to be *coerced* into the obligations of citizenship without first receiving the rights of citizenship.

Contributing to your home's defense is NOT (only) an obligation of
citizenship. It is an obligation of your RESIDENCE in the U.S., and one I
do not find morally inconsistent. Same with taxes.

Paulgani

<c@y.com> wrote in message
news:idc520dknn2evpvf7lr5l2sdu5t29m3851@4ax.com... What I am saying is that I don't wish to be *coerced* into the obligations of citizenship without first receiving the rights of citizenship.

Contributing to your home's defense is NOT (only) an obligation of
citizenship. It is an obligation of your RESIDENCE in the U.S., and one I
do not find morally inconsistent. Same with taxes.

Paulgani

Well Andrew give me a couple hundred hours to play back all of the pre-
war crap I was fed by George W. Bush and I'll see if anywhere in there
was the statement, "We're really concerned that Iraq isn't progressing
the way that it should so we're going to bomb them."

No, I don't think
WMD was the only reason we invaded. Among many other things, I think
Dubya has had a hard-on for Saddam ever since he tried to have Bush
Senior assassinated.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: That's all well and good, after the
fact. We didn't invade Iraq to promote their
progression. How do you know this? We invaded
because of the alleged WMD. That was one stated reasons. Do
you think it was the only reason? There would be very little
to rebuild if we hadn't levelled the country to begin
with. We did not level the entire country, nor even most of
it. --
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Well Andrew give me a couple hundred hours to play back all of the pre-
war crap I was fed by George W. Bush and I'll see if anywhere in there
was the statement, "We're really concerned that Iraq isn't progressing
the way that it should so we're going to bomb them."

No, I don't think
WMD was the only reason we invaded. Among many other things, I think
Dubya has had a hard-on for Saddam ever since he tried to have Bush
Senior assassinated.

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote: That's all well and good, after the
fact. We didn't invade Iraq to promote their
progression. How do you know this? We invaded
because of the alleged WMD. That was one stated reasons. Do
you think it was the only reason? There would be very little
to rebuild if we hadn't levelled the country to begin
with. We did not level the entire country, nor even most of
it. --
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Matthew Udall wrote:
Originally posted by c Like I say, the day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them. Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a couple of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be forced to serve. But as to your statement above, if you look at the oath you would have to take when applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted the greatest

Off Topic question but What is this "Â" character? How is it generated
and what is it supposed to mean?
--
If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

Matthew Udall wrote:
Originally posted by c Like I say, the day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them. Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a couple of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be forced to serve. But as to your statement above, if you look at the oath you would have to take when applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted the greatest

Off Topic question but What is this "Â" character? How is it generated
and what is it supposed to mean?
--
If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Matthew Udall
wrote: Originally posted by c Like I say, the
day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of
them. Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a
couple of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be
forced to serve. But as to your statement
above, if you look at the oath you would have to take when
applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted
the greatest Off Topic question but What is this "Â"
character? How is it generated and what is it supposed to mean? --
If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?


Hi:

I see it as quotation marks. I've noted that quotation marks
sometimes do weird things in transition -- I write my briefs in MS Word
and the quotations marks get kind of weird on my LaserJet 1100 -- but
if I print to Acrobat and then prind the resulting PDF -- its just
fine. One of these days I figure it out -- but the above hack seems
to meet my modest needs for present.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Matthew Udall
wrote: Originally posted by c Like I say, the
day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of
them. Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a
couple of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be
forced to serve. But as to your statement
above, if you look at the oath you would have to take when
applying for Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted
the greatest Off Topic question but What is this "Â"
character? How is it generated and what is it supposed to mean? --
If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?


Hi:

I see it as quotation marks. I've noted that quotation marks
sometimes do weird things in transition -- I write my briefs in MS Word
and the quotations marks get kind of weird on my LaserJet 1100 -- but
if I print to Acrobat and then prind the resulting PDF -- its just
fine. One of these days I figure it out -- but the above hack seems
to meet my modest needs for present.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Matthew Udall
wrote: Originally posted by c Like I say, the
day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them.
Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a couple
of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be forced to
serve. But as to your statement above, if you
look at the oath you would have to take when applying for
Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to
Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted the greatest
Off Topic question but What is this "Â" character? How is it
generated and what is it supposed to mean? -- If Fed Ex and UPS
were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

Off topic reply: I
asked the same question myself the other day in another thread. I was
hoping someone more computer savvy could tell me how to get rid of this
problem. You will notice that this character did not appear in my
original post, but sometimes some of the characters (such as an
apostrophe or quotation marks) will be swapped for unusual characters
when someone else receives an e-mail from me, or when my original work
is cut and paste into anotherÂ’s word processor.

Could it have anything
to do with the keyboard settings that came as the default settings on my
computer? Or is it just a quirk when using Times New Roman font (I use
Microsoft Word as my word processor)? Any ideas how to fix this (by
changing settings, not buying a new computer or chucking my MS Word)?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria Matthew Udall
wrote: Originally posted by c Like I say, the
day I get the vote and the Bill of Rights, I'll be happy to pick up my M-16 with the rest of them.
Hi Marco, As Folinskyinla has posted a couple
of times in this thread, a non-citizen canÂ't be forced to
serve. But as to your statement above, if you
look at the oath you would have to take when applying for
Naturalization you will see that you have to be willing to
Â"pick up your M-16Â" Â"beforeÂ" you are granted the greatest
Off Topic question but What is this "Â" character? How is it
generated and what is it supposed to mean? -- If Fed Ex and UPS
were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

Off topic reply: I
asked the same question myself the other day in another thread. I was
hoping someone more computer savvy could tell me how to get rid of this
problem. You will notice that this character did not appear in my
original post, but sometimes some of the characters (such as an
apostrophe or quotation marks) will be swapped for unusual characters
when someone else receives an e-mail from me, or when my original work
is cut and paste into anotherÂ’s word processor.

Could it have anything
to do with the keyboard settings that came as the default settings on my
computer? Or is it just a quirk when using Times New Roman font (I use
Microsoft Word as my word processor)? Any ideas how to fix this (by
changing settings, not buying a new computer or chucking my MS Word)?


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Matt,

I stand corrected on the fact that a non-citizen can't be forced to
serve.

On the other hand, when the alternative is to leave one's home and
possibly one's family, then it may not be 'force' but it's certainly
'duress.'

Now, I have often enjoyed your posts and found you to be a reasonable
and intelligent man. So I find the tone of your post somewhat
surprising. Maybe I'm mis-reading you, and if so please correct me,
but it seemed like your post verged on the 'get out you ungrateful
foreigner' kind of post that is unfortunately not too uncommon on this
newsgroup.

I have never served in the armed forces, but I went through the
Parachute Regiment training and selection program (British equivalent
of the Airborne) when I was a younger man. It was my dream to join,
but a fractured leg and badly damaged knee incurred during that
training program put paid to the idea of being an infantry officer. So
I am somewhat upset to hear a phrase like 'weasel out' thrown my way.
That implies to me that my sole purpose in this argument is to avoid
the pain and general unpleasantness of combat.

I was trying to argue a point of principle. That point is this: it
seems inequitable to be asked to pay the ultimate price without having
any input into choosing the leaders who would ask me to do this. I
can't for the life of me see why this is such an unreasonable
proposition, but apparently it colors me pusillanimous. Wasn't this
country established because the people wanted a say over who ruled
them and not have to live under tyranny?

A cursory inspection of my posting history would show that I hold
great love and respect for this country, and as I said, I may very
well *volunteer* to defend it even if I am not a citizen, if
circumstances were to become grave enough.

I'm just a guy married to an American, an American who doesn't want to
live in Britain. So I'm trying my best to follow the Byzantine process
of becoming an LPR and then a citizen of the USA so that I can live
here with my wife who I love. I'm also a guy who thinks that the USA
is a wonderful country. Not without problems, but a wonderful country.
I'm a libertarian who believes that the founding ideas and principles
of this nation verge on genius. Shame we're so far from those ideals,
but I digress.

I live here by choice and the good graces of the USCIS, and yes, I
could leave at any time, I suppose. But that doesn't make it right, in
my opinion, for the government to say to me: stand ready to give us
the ultimate sacrifice, but don't expect the right to vote or the
protection of the Bill of Rights, and if you don't like it, you'll
have to take your USC wife and go back to where you came from.

This seems, somewhat, I don't know, un-American to me.

As I say, if I've read you wrong, my apologies. I tell you, if I could
be a citizen tomorrow, I would be the happiest man alive. Not just
because I would be able to live freely in the USA with my wife, but
also because I *want* to be involved in the politics of this country,
to be an active citizen-voter working to make this country better.
When I have no free speech protection and no vote, that's kind of
tough.

Again, if I misinterpreted your post, apologies.

Cheers,

Marco

Matt,

I stand corrected on the fact that a non-citizen can't be forced to
serve.

On the other hand, when the alternative is to leave one's home and
possibly one's family, then it may not be 'force' but it's certainly
'duress.'

Now, I have often enjoyed your posts and found you to be a reasonable
and intelligent man. So I find the tone of your post somewhat
surprising. Maybe I'm mis-reading you, and if so please correct me,
but it seemed like your post verged on the 'get out you ungrateful
foreigner' kind of post that is unfortunately not too uncommon on this
newsgroup.

I have never served in the armed forces, but I went through the
Parachute Regiment training and selection program (British equivalent
of the Airborne) when I was a younger man. It was my dream to join,
but a fractured leg and badly damaged knee incurred during that
training program put paid to the idea of being an infantry officer. So
I am somewhat upset to hear a phrase like 'weasel out' thrown my way.
That implies to me that my sole purpose in this argument is to avoid
the pain and general unpleasantness of combat.

I was trying to argue a point of principle. That point is this: it
seems inequitable to be asked to pay the ultimate price without having
any input into choosing the leaders who would ask me to do this. I
can't for the life of me see why this is such an unreasonable
proposition, but apparently it colors me pusillanimous. Wasn't this
country established because the people wanted a say over who ruled
them and not have to live under tyranny?

A cursory inspection of my posting history would show that I hold
great love and respect for this country, and as I said, I may very
well *volunteer* to defend it even if I am not a citizen, if
circumstances were to become grave enough.

I'm just a guy married to an American, an American who doesn't want to
live in Britain. So I'm trying my best to follow the Byzantine process
of becoming an LPR and then a citizen of the USA so that I can live
here with my wife who I love. I'm also a guy who thinks that the USA
is a wonderful country. Not without problems, but a wonderful country.
I'm a libertarian who believes that the founding ideas and principles
of this nation verge on genius. Shame we're so far from those ideals,
but I digress.

I live here by choice and the good graces of the USCIS, and yes, I
could leave at any time, I suppose. But that doesn't make it right, in
my opinion, for the government to say to me: stand ready to give us
the ultimate sacrifice, but don't expect the right to vote or the
protection of the Bill of Rights, and if you don't like it, you'll
have to take your USC wife and go back to where you came from.

This seems, somewhat, I don't know, un-American to me.

As I say, if I've read you wrong, my apologies. I tell you, if I could
be a citizen tomorrow, I would be the happiest man alive. Not just
because I would be able to live freely in the USA with my wife, but
also because I *want* to be involved in the politics of this country,
to be an active citizen-voter working to make this country better.
When I have no free speech protection and no vote, that's kind of
tough.

Again, if I misinterpreted your post, apologies.

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
Contributing to your home's defense is NOT (only) an obligation ofcitizenship. It is an obligation of your RESIDENCE in the U.S., and one Ido not find morally inconsistent. Same with taxes.

So, yet again, we come back to this being a difference of opinion on
what is moral and what is not.

So again, I suggest we agree to differ.

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Paul Gani:
tasty but deadly.'
Contributing to your home's defense is NOT (only) an obligation ofcitizenship. It is an obligation of your RESIDENCE in the U.S., and one Ido not find morally inconsistent. Same with taxes.

So, yet again, we come back to this being a difference of opinion on
what is moral and what is not.

So again, I suggest we agree to differ.

Cheers,

Marco

Hi! I'm actor Troy McClure. You may remember me from such threads as
'Re: Welcome to America - You're In the Army Now!' and 'Folinskyinla:
tasty but deadly.'
Also, aliens have the absolute right to avoid military service. Theycan't be FORCED to enter the military -- and the only penalty that isimposed is a bar to naturalization [and concomitant with that -- futureimmigration].

Noted, and thanks for the correction.

Cheers,

Marco