SivaGanesha

1. Someone in email who shall go nameless

Bad weather seems to be following me around this year. It was cloudy and rainy later in the spring in N.Ca than usual this year--and now that I've moved north, the dry, sunny season is again slow to make its appearance. I haven't really had the money to do much jumping anyways, but that is about to change. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I just booked my ticket and also registered for the boogie this week. I should arrive mid to late afternoon Thursday. Looks like I'll finally be able to get some serious jumping in 2010 in! "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I started a new job recently so am mainly focused on settling into my job right now. I did advise a friend who has been unemployed for a long time about an opening at my firm. I didn't hear anything back from her so I don't know if I actually made a difference or not. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Anyone who has a valid visa but not a green card is, legally, a non-resident no matter how long they are here. Although some visas have time limits, some do not, or have exceptions which in practice allow some people to stay legally almost indefinitely without getting a green card. However no one, legal or not, green card or not, is supposed to be voting until they become a citizen. There are, I believe, a few rare exceptions where green card holders can vote in local elections--but never in federal congressional, senatorial, or presidential elections. US citizens living abroad are supposed to be able to vote. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm kind of curious what the CCI's authority was for doing this. Presumably the logbook is the property of the student, and was signed by instructors who witnessed the jumps, and the CCI did not witness those jumps. Where is the basis for the CCI, who wasn't on the jumps, overruling those who were on the jumps? Redlining the jumps like that makes it sound like the CCI believed there was outright fraud--that he/she believes the jumps in question never happened. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a licensed skydiver doesn't have an AAD but pulls so low that the AAD would have fired if they had one--and nevertheless walks away from the skydive uninjured? Would they be grounded? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I expect to be there. I am settling into my new job in Seattle but expect to come down to N.Ca. for all four days. I may have some errands to run in the Bay Area on Thursday but expect to arrive at the DZ by late Thursday and stay for the rest of the boogie. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I think they perceive that their lives are going to be more fun when they get to the USA. If they have life savings to part with in the first place they are doing a lot better than many unemployed Americans these days. Organizations such as NumbersUSA and ALIPAC have been lobbying for laws such as Arizona's for at least a decade now. The fact that the politicians are now acting rather than talking is, indeed, closely related to the unemployment rate. I actually agree that the first target should be the companies that hire illegals. Arizona has already taken that first step by making E-Verify mandatory in Arizona. But I object to phrases like the "illegals are just trying to better themselves". Apologists for the illegals always try to use such phrases as though people should bow down and worship these lofty illegals who have such a noble purpose in life. I would put it more bluntly and honestly--the illegals are trying to make more money. That's not wrong in and of itself. But there are legal and illegal ways of doing so. Bernie Madoff was just trying to make more money too. Are we now to start worshipping Bernie because he was "just trying to better himself"? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

A lot of whuffos would say much the same thing about skydiving. There are always going to be those who are willing to take risks to gain a perceived benefit. It doesn't necessarily follow that their prior life was in a hellhole. More than half of illegal immigrants come from Mexico so it seems to me that if you are talking about general motivations for coming illegally that discussion must include Mexico. There may be more specific discussions related to other countries that one could have as well. Here is the reference for the unemployment rates: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/45/45174490.pdf The USA has had a rough time in recent years compared to other countries. Any appeal to US voters to have 'compassion' that doesn't include compassion for unemployed US workers is likely to fall on deaf ears and rightly so. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The USA has a FAR higher unemployment rate than its immediate neighbor Mexico. I do not think mere survival is the issue at least for the majority of illegal immigrants who hail from Mexico. True an employed person in the USA is, in general, much better off than an employed person in Mexico. There is definitely an economic draw. But I take issue with the claim that the draw is related to matters of physical survival. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

We are getting a bit away from the topic but one thing that made the Elian case difficult is that it was very hard to know what was really in Elian's best interest. On the one hand he probably would have had far more opportunities in life staying in the USA but on the other hand after the death of his mother he had far more close surviving family in Cuba (eg the father, grandparents). It was a hard call to make. Since his mother perished in the attempt to get him to the USA, it seems reasonable to think about what his mother would have wanted, but no one seemed too sure exactly what his mother would have wanted in such circumstances. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Military recruits are supposed to be legal citizens or green card holders. However I'm not sure whether the military is obliged to follow civilian rules on this or the rules on this are solely a matter of military policy (and hence subject to relaxation/change at their discretion). Perhaps someone who is a veteran can tell us whether they had to fill in Form I-9 when they joined the military. I just get the sense that joining the military, although it is like being 'hired' in some ways (eg you get a paycheck), also is a different process in many ways than the usual civilian hiring process. Once someone is in the military, I think their commitment and eventual discharge from the military is solely an internal military process. I don't think ICE has the authority to conduct raids of military facilities to find out who has/has not been hired illegally. Anyone in/formerly in the military have anything to add? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Deportation was never an issue with Elian. Cubans who reach dry land--which Elian did but sadly his mother did not--are entitled to stay in the USA. All agreed that the decision as to whether Elian would stay was not the government's to make. The disagreement was in who was empowered to make that decision: the father, the Miami relatives, or Elian himself. Had all branches of the family been in agreement the courts/government would never have been involved at all. Elian would never have been deported. The only way for him to return to Cuba was in the custody of responsible family members--not the government--and that is what ultimately happened. The real question here is whether the policy of returning to Cuba those who are picked up at sea is a humane or fair policy. But Elian didn't fall into that group. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I feel that some illegal immigrants are more sympathetic figures than others and I agree that permanently exiling a 19 year old from the only country they've known seems a little harsh. OTOH there is nothing unusual about putting a 19 year old in a situation where they don't know anyone and expecting them to sink or swim. For example--going away to college, joining the military, moving to start a new job. The ones I have the most compassion for--and I think this is a fairly rare situation but it does occasionally happen--are the ones who do not speak the language of the 'home' country to which they are deported. That's a very rough situation and I have full compassion for such people. I also think it is thankfully quite rare because usually in immigrant homes Spanish, or whatever the original language is, is still spoken. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

No because there is a law on the books allowing those who have served honorably in the military to obtain US citizenship. Prior immigration status is not a consideration. Now it is true that those who are illegal are not supposed to get into the military in the first place. But if they manage to find their way in (eg maybe the recruiter was short on quotas and didn't look too closely at immigration status) they can use their service to qualify for citizenship. At that point, their past illegal status is, in effect, forgiven. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

If it's truly as obvious as you say, then the wife in the original scenario already knows. And if it's not I see no reason why anyone need make it their business to inform her. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

What I was suggesting with the 100% thing is that, when it comes to sexuality, unless you directly witness it or a direct participant confides in you, all information is essentially gossip of very questionable reliability. It is a very private area of life and information that is being discussed publicly in this area of life should be treated with great skepticism. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In no case should they be allowed to stay. Officer VonNovak should be opening an investigation to determine how they managed to make ends meet while living in the USA. Did they use fraudulent social security cards? Did they engage in day labor being paid solely in cash? Did they finance themselves through a life of crime (ie activities that would be criminal even for US citizens)? If it is discovered, through this investigation, that others committed crimes allowing A and B to stay in the USA, then those people should be prosecuted. In all cases A and B must leave the country. But how they leave the country will depend on whether they co-operate with vonNovak's investigation. If they co-operate, then they should be granted voluntary departure without prejudice. By this I mean that they leave but at any time in the future when they qualify for a legitimate visa, they will be welcome to return. If they do NOT co-operate, then by the Fifth they cannot be forced to. But they should be prosecuted for any crimes for which evidence already exists (eg entering the country illegally) and after serving their sentences be forcibly deported. A long term bar to ever returning would then apply. C is a US citizen. If there is a legal resident or citizen who is willing to take C in and assume some custody of C, then, at A and B's discretion, C may remain in the USA. If there is no responsible and legal adult in the USA willing to take responsibility for C, then C returns home with A and B and can come back to the USA as an adult. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm not certain what "risk" you are referring to. If you know--for 100% certain--that the hubby is carrying a life threatening STD (eg AIDS) that he picked up in his 'travels' and you also know--for 100% certain--that he hasn't informed his wife of this, then I would say you inform the wife because you may be saving a life. In all other circumstances you mind your own business. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Employers will only hire unemployed people if they feel that the marginal profit they expect to realize from hiring those people is positive. There are costs associated with bringing people on board--even if they are paid zero or the minimum wage--so the net effect on the bottom line can sometimes be negative if the wrong people are brought on board. If employers feel--whether fairly or because of unfair prejudices--that hiring the unemployed would result in the business losing money no matter how low their wages--then they'll never hire such people no matter how low the wages get. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes, except that supply and demand is only "simple" in certain situations. When you are talking about trading shares of Microsoft, supply and demand is simple. When you're talking about people, it's never simple. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Agreed about their interpretation but it seems they used English common law to get their precedent: "were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign" In other words when the parents are not citizens, then the citizenship of the child seems to depend on the parents, while not citizens, at least having some "loyalty" or "allegiance" to their adopted country. It is very hard to see where the child of an illegal alien fits into the framework that the above quote seems to envision. I think the basic principle here is that if the parents are playing fully by the rules of the country, then the offspring are full citizens even if the parents are not. But if the parents just forced their way in--all bets are off. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

My understanding is that in 1868 immigration was a matter of state law but naturalization was, even then, a matter of federal law. I'd be interested to know how federal naturalization law in 1868 handled cases where some immigrated in violation of state law. I believe the waiting period to naturalize was, even then, five years. So suppose in 1868 someone emigrated from Europe to Connecticut in violation of Connecticut state law (using a Union state as an example to avoid any legal complexities involving the former Confederate states). They then lived, illegally, in Connecticut for five years until 1873. Would they then have be able to naturalize as a US, and hence Connecticut, citizen under federal law? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Australia is about 15 hours ahead of the USA and they also have different days for honoring those who gave their lives in military service. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014