Search

Posts Tagged ‘think’

What do you think 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants.?

Question by Untied States Of Latina: What do you think 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants.?
Each year, an estimated 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants. More than 25 percent of those babies are born in California.

Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath.

That could change if legislation that Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, joined in sponsoring in April becomes law.

Lungren, who served as California’s attorney general from 1990 to 1998 and worked on the last successful push for an immigration overhaul when he represented Long Beach in the Congress in the 1980s, said he is trying to stimulate a debate on what he believes is a key factor drawing immigrants illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Critics have another word for it.

“Xenophobia,” said Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “They are afraid of having more Hispanic citizens.”

Contributing to the evolution of U.S. policy is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Ratified in 1868, after the Civil War, it was intended to ensure that children of freed slaves were extended U.S. citizenship. The amendment states simply that anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen.

U.S. policy has come to recognize “birthright citizenship” in just about every vital transaction.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/370050.html

Best answer:

Answer by Lori K
I think the illegal alien issue is out of control on more than one front. This is just another reason we HAVE to get control. If for no other reason but for the welfare of these children. Being born into an environment where they are raised among those involved in an illegal subculture just isn’t fair. They need to be back in their own country where their children aren’t put into untenable positions.

Illegal parents aren’t suitable parents. It’s unfortunate, but true.

Add your own answer in the comments!

15 comments - What do you think?  Posted by - March 30, 2011 at 10:13 pm

Categories: Immigration Lawyer   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Q&A: ok, I think my legal case is lost for good….?


by quinn.anya

Question by Arlene M: ok, I think my legal case is lost for good….?
my lawyer and I (I ‘m plaintiff) entered into a binding arbitration, pending a high low parameter in an personal injury case. My lawyer sent me back to see the ortho doc who testified at a depo that my symptoms and injuries were a direct result of the accident. The ortho doc was less than pleased to see me again. My lawyer wanted to make sure I was still a candidate for surgical intervention as the doc stated in the depo. This time however, the doc said, the surgery must be done another way (bones fused)due to the amount of time lapsed since I last saw him (~ 2 1/2 years ago)
& it is risky & hard to recover from & he would not even do the surgery now or in the furure. he told me to just “deal with” the pain and numbness I have almost on a daily basis. When i told him that he would not need to testify at a trial in my case, and I handed him a letter from the lawyer stating that, he said ” I don’t care, give it to my assistant”.
is my case ruined now that i cant have the surgery?

Best answer:

Answer by my avatar is hot but I’m not
I don’t see how it’s ruined, he just told you you’re permenantly disabled, that just strengthens your injury claim. But I don’t know what angle your PI lawyer is going for either.

You do have a surgery option, right, just not the same one, so he’ll put a spin on it one way or the other.

Add your own answer in the comments!

2 comments - What do you think?  Posted by - March 10, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Categories: Personal Injury Lawyer   Tags: , , , ,

Who Do You Think Is The Most Frusterated?


by greg westfall.

Question by Dew Drop: Who Do You Think Is The Most Frusterated?
A judge, bored and frustrated by a lawyer’s tedious arguments, had made numerous rulings to speed the trial along.

The attorney had bristled at the judge’s orders, and their tempers grew hot.

Finally, frustrated with another repetition of arguments he had heard many times before, the judge pointed to his ear and said, “Counselor, you should be aware that at this point, what you are saying is just going in one ear and out the other.”

“Your honor,” replied the lawyer, “That goes without saying. What is there to prevent it?”

Best answer:

Answer by Kat
Eh….

Give your answer to this question below!

8 comments - What do you think?  Posted by - March 9, 2011 at 12:15 am

Categories: Trial Lawyers   Tags: , ,

what is your opinion on this do you think it is fair??? 10pts for best answer please read thoroughly :)?

Question by ganicity: what is your opinion on this do you think it is fair??? 10pts for best answer please read thoroughly :)?
Two middle-school students in Oregon are facing possible time in a juvenile jail and could have to register as sex offenders for smacking girls on the rear end at school.

Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, were arrested in February after they were caught in the halls of Patton Middle School, in McMinnville, Ore., slapping girls on the rear end. Mashburn told ABC News in a phone interview that this was a common way of saying hello practiced by lots of kids at the school, akin to a secret handshake.

The boys spent five days in a juvenile detention facility and were charged with several counts of felony sex abuse for what they and their parents said was merely inappropriate but not criminal behavior.

The local district attorney has since backed off — the felony charges have been dropped and the district attorney said probation would be an appropriate punishment. The Mashburns’ lawyer said prosecutors offered Cory a plea bargain that would not require him to register as a sex offender, which the family plans to reject.

But the boys, if convicted at an Aug. 20 trial, still face the possibility of some jail time or registering for life as sex offenders.

The boys’ families and lawyers said even sentencing them to probation would turn admittedly inappropriate but not uncommon juvenile rowdiness into a crime. If they are convicted of any of the misdemeanor charges against them, they would have to register as sex offenders.

What’s Your Take?

“It’s devastating,” said Mark Lawrence, Cory Mashburn’s lawyer. “To be a registered sex offender is to be designated as the most loathed in our society. These are young boys with bright futures, and the brightness of those futures would be over.”

Cory Mashburn said he and Ryan Cornelison slapped each others’ and other kids’ bottoms every Friday. “Lots of kids at school do that,” he said.

Cory and Ryan were brought to the principal’s office Feb. 22, where they were questioned by school officials and a police officer. They were arrested that day and taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention facility.

Court papers said the boys touched the buttocks of several girls, some of whom said this made them uncomfortable. The papers also said Cory touched a girl’s breasts. But police reports filed with the court said other students, both boys and girls, slapped each other on the bottom.

“It’s like a handshake we do,” one girl said, according to the police report.

The boys were initially charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse. At a court hearing, two of the girls recanted, saying they never felt threatened or inappropriately touched by the boys. The judge released the boys but barred them from returning to school and required that they be under constant adult supervision.

District Attorney Bradley Berry has since dismissed the felony counts. The boys face 10 misdemeanor charges of harassment and sexual abuse. They face a maximum of up to one year in a juvenile jail on each count, though Berry said there was no way the boys would ever serve that much time.

“An appropriate sentence would be probation,” he said. “These are minor misdemeanor charges that reflect repeated contact against multiple victims. We never intended for them to get a long time in detention.”

“We’re not seeking major penalties,” he said. “We’re seeking change in conduct.”

‘We Just Want This to Be Over’ Tracie Mashburn, Cory’s mother, said they will not accept plea and plan to fight the charges.

The arrests, critics said, reflect a trend toward criminalizing adolescent sexual behavior. Between 1998 and 2002, juvenile arrests for sex offenses other than rape or prostitution rose 9 percent — the only kind of juvenile arrests that rose during that time, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

“More and more, they are criminalizing normal adolescent or preadolescent behavior,” said Chuck Aron, co-chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers juvenile justice committee.

Even probation, the Mashburns and their attorney said, would be too severe a punishment.

Julie McFarlane, a supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project in Portland, Ore., said, “Probation for a sex offense is very difficult thing, and there’s a pretty high failure rate.” Failing to meet the terms of probation could mean the boys would be sent to jail.

Depending on the terms of probation, it’s likely that the boys would not be allowed to have sexual contact with anyone or any contact with younger children, McFarlane said. For Cory Mashburn, that would mean he couldn’t be left alone with his younger siblings.

“It’s been awful,” said Cory’s mother. “We just want this to all be over. But it will never go away. We’ll always remember it.”

Berry, the district attorney, said the victims — the girls who were touched — were being overlooked. “What’s been lost in this whole thing are the victims, who have been pressured enormously by these boys’

Best answer:

Answer by Anna
that’s stupid. Guys at my school smack my butt alll the time. and i dont enjoy it but its like whatever because boys will be boys. it was inappropriate but not criminal behavior. i think they should just write a letter of appology to the girls and just stop. because you’d have to arrest alottt of boys because practically all boys do that. i mean there are people getting RAPED out there, you shouldnt make a bigg deal out of middle school boys smacking girls’ butts. they’re going through puberty and you dont know if the girls just wanted to get them in trouble. in my opinion, everyone’s overreacting.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

1 comment - What do you think?  Posted by - March 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm

Categories: Trial Lawyers   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Q&A: Do you think whenever “scientific” studies are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?

Question by Poyzin: Do you think whenever “scientific” studies are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?
For example, this moronic study http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer/19348936?icid=main|main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fstudy-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer%2F19348936

Claims sugar causes cancer – if the sugar is in the form of soda pop. So you find out where the study came from and it’s from the government of Singapore – the country that whips you with 7 foot long Ratton canes soaked in water on the bare assss if you spit on the sidewalk.
You obviously can’t trust THAT study.

Similarly, the global warming scam – government-sponsored “scientists’ using back-filled data and 100 iterations to reach the pre-determined “conclusion”.

The cell phone cancer scare, funded by trial lawyers, salivating over the next “asbestos” type lawsuit lottery.

It never stops. Should we conclude that all “scientific” studies that are widely published on lowest common denominator sites like AOL and Yahoo news are fraudulent?

Best answer:

Answer by Ratz
Uh, no, that study is not “published” to the public, it’s published in a science journal ( http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/ ) and reported on AOL. You aren’t a very good reader as the study acknowledges,

“But the study isn’t a definitive answer. Out of the 60,000 individuals studied, 140 developed pancreatic cancer. Of those, 18 cases occurred in patients who’d consumed large quantities of soda, 12 occurred in those who drank soda occasionally, and 110 occurred in those who never consumed the sugary beverages.

In their analysis, the researchers acknowledge that the small numbers limit the power of the data, and “giv[e] potential to a chance association.” The team also cites four previous studies that found little or no connection between soda and pancreatic cancer.

There are a handful of definitive or suggested causes for pancreatic cancer, making this study even more difficult to interpret. Aside from red meat consumption, smoking and diabetes, risk factors include genetics, ethnicity, old age, obesity and even excessive alcohol consumption.”

Give your answer to this question below!

1 comment - What do you think?  Posted by - February 20, 2011 at 2:11 am

Categories: Trial Lawyer   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Do you think whenever “studies” are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?

Question by Poyzin: Do you think whenever “studies” are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?
For example, this moronic study http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer/19348936?icid=main|main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fstudy-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer%2F19348936

Claims sugar causes cancer – if it’s in the form of soda pop. So you find out where the study came from and it’s from the government of Singapore – the country that whips you with 7 foot long Ratton canes soaked in water on the bare assss if you spit on the sidewalk.
You obviously can’t trust THAT study.

Similarly, the global warming scam – government-sponsored “scientists’ using back-filled data and 100 iterations to reach the pre-determined “conclusion”.

The cell phone cancer scare, funded by trial lawyers, salivating over the next “asbestos” type lawsuit lottery.

It never stops. Should we conclude that all “scientific” studies that are widely published on lowest common denominator sites like AOL and Yahoo news are fraudulent?

Best answer:

Answer by Nesquick
I wouldn’t past the powers that be to abuse these “studies” for the sake of profit.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

3 comments - What do you think?  Posted by - February 18, 2011 at 9:12 pm

Categories: Trial Lawyer   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What do liberals think of my “free market” healthcare plan?

Question by YES WE CAN!: What do liberals think of my “free market” healthcare plan?
Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don’t have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It’s a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let’s all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term “free market.”

Nearly every problem with health care in this country — apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors’ waiting rooms — would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can’t have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they’d make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That’s the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn’t afford the $ 6,700 premiums, and now she’s got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama’s use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio’s state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics — you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms “Harry Reid” and “Viagra” in the same sentence. I promise that won’t happen again.)

Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again — things like Natoma Canfield’s cancer.)

This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into … a form of insurance!

My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare — and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.

For example, in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding “pre-existing conditions.”

Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with “pre-existing conditions.” Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It’s the same reason you can’t buy fire insurance on a house that’s already on fire.

That isn’t an “insurance company”; it’s what’s known as a “Christian charity.”

What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of “pre-existing conditions” is an insurance company using the “pre-existing condition” ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder — someone who’s been paying into the plan, year after year.

Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn’t stay in business long.

If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I’d be explaining to you why the government doesn’t need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn’t, they’d go out of business.

I’m sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. (“But what if they don’t stock the food we want?”)

The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don’t believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.

Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn’t so easy when co

Best answer:

Answer by Dem Spin
I am so sorry you lost.

Give your answer to this question below!

8 comments - What do you think?  Posted by - February 13, 2011 at 5:13 am

Categories: Trial Lawyer   Tags: , , , , ,

Next Page »