HAPe4me

The two stories I related above are only the tip of what many are distressed about. There are undoubtedly many other programs that are believed to exist whereby aliens, and illegal aliens are said to acquire benefits which it is said citizens cannot receive. In neither of the two above, were the recipients described as illegal by the poster bringing them to the table. In other similiar stories I have heard both here and in other internet or newsprint sources, illegal immigrants are claimed to receive these benefits. I have numerous questions already at this time. First is: DO GOVERNMENT BENEFIT PROGRAMS EXIST FOR WHICH ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE ELIGIBLE BUT NOT CITIZENS?? Secondly: HOW ABOUT FOR LEGAL RESIDENT ALIENS? Thirdly: IF THEY EXIST, WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THEM? KICK OUT THE RECIPIENTS? (shoot the recipients? oops that is a carryover, sorry) CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ENABLE THE PROGRAMS? (shoot the lawmakers?) COMPLAIN BUT NOT PURSUE THE ISSUE IN HOPES IT WILL GO AWAY? Who can identify the specific programs that they have heard about and are upset about. Are they in fact funded by taxpayer dollars? Is it State or Federal tax monies? Who are the beneficiaries? Are they legally here in the US? Illegally? Can citizens get the same benefits? What are the specified eligibility requirements for any of the programs? Who are the lawmakers that have passed laws enabling these programs? Are you upset about benefit programs for LEGAL resident aliens? I am of the belief that any government funded benefit program for citizens, residents, or immigrants (legal or not) MUST have publically accessible specific rules, targets, information. I also believe that there has to be publicly accessible laws and appropriations which have funded them. What are the laws, where are the rules? All government funding is done through Congress is it not? Ok, hopefully that can get this started. I have heard so long about these programs, I want to know more about the issues and what can or should be done, assuming they exist. The United States Code, Title 8- (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 14 (Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens) upon cursory glance would seem to bar such benefits for illegal aliens in most cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/usc...ers/14/toc.html Where are the programs then? ~HAP

On several threads recently and in the past, mention has been made by many posters of discomfort or anger at aliens and especially illegal aliens having access to scholarships, grants, benefits, programs etc. for which even citizens do not qualify. These programs have been described as being government funded, with our tax dollars. I can certainly understand the concerns about these matters. I would like to delve deeper into this and think that doing so on the other thread easily derails the topic of that thread so I am starting a new topic. I have been thus far unable to identify the actual names of the programs on which the most recent concerns have been raised, and I hope that anyone with interest in this topic might help to find them. One poster raised heartfelt concern about a program she had been made aware of at work, but was unwilling due to some understandable reasons to give me more detailed information on the name of the program itself. The issue of her concern was identified as being paid with government funds, but handled thru the employer, and, as I understood the thin description, allowed aliens to circumvent their existing credit card debt and receive assistance for education with taxpayer money! One of my responses to her was: Another poster mentioned an issue with education and housing assistance given to ungrateful people from foreign countries while, "we have people who are VETERANS of Vietnam, Korea, WWII etc --people who fought for this country--sleeping in shelters dying in homeless camps, veterans not covered by any kind of Government pension because their injuries resulted from "friendly Fire", the list is endless." She ended that post with "Scholarships and Aid for our own. Aid for those coming here who wish to become part of our great country" My response was: Ok, in order to not make this opening post too long to be read, I will go to another post to further frame where I am going with these inquiries. If I in anyway have misrepresented what either of those posters wrote, I apologize, and will cheerfully edit or correct as they wish. I left out some of what was written for brevity and I sincerely hope that I did not err from their intent and meaning. The other things that were said were also pertinent and germaine, but you get the idea of what we have discussed already, hopefully. ~HAP

Ladies (Chatty Kathy and Templelady)- Forget my request to paste your recent posts to another thread. I will just go ahead and start one. Feel free and join me there if you wish. I can see that the topic Gangs here could be grossly derailed if we continued here. I think this is a fascinating topic that SHOULD be able to be addressed in the decorum we so far have each acquitted ourselves with! thanks1 ~HAP

OK Chatty, I understand your hesitancy to disclose, and thanks for agreeing we are not fighting. I certainly feel that way and I do not doubt your word. I only am asking questions that could help me understand where the problem resides, and what can be done about it. I still contend that laws and detailed rules and application processes must exist for these programs that I am told illegals get but citizens cannot. One method to delay the problem is to round people up and send them home. This does not fix the problem, because the money is still allocated and others will return to get it unless these programs are rewritten by laws, rules allocations whatever. I just cannot find what these talked about proigrams ARE! ~HAP EDITED TO ASK CHATTY AND TEMPLELADY IF I HAVE THEIR PERMISSION TO PASTE THEIR RECENT POSTS INTO ANOTHER THREAD SPECIFIC TO THIS TOPIC RATHER THAN OCCUPY SPACE ON THIS THREAD ABOUT GANGS?

Can you give me the name of the program under which these subsidies are given??? Is it something the employer pays but is compensated/ reimbursed by the government? I know for instance, at least at one time, if a business did work under contract for a government entity, and hired minority employees to perform the work, there was a program that allowed those wages to be paid back by government programs, and the employer also got a processing fee. (This was not for foreign employees, but for "minority classification" employees, under Equal Opportunity laws) It cost me several contracts, since I was not big enough to qualify for the program. Since I would have had to pay all the wages due to my employees, I was at a disadvantage. I wasn't angry about it, I really didn't want the jobs. I prefer small private contracts and the closer contact to the end user. I believe any such government programs have some website, whether it is a Grant application site or the HEW, or Labor Department, whatever, that describes the guidelines. Like I said earlier, money spent by the government is allocated under some rules which are embedded in law somewhere. (okay, we all also expect there is some graft and corruption somewhere, but...) Are there laws that need to be changed? Is there some bureaucrat that is mis-approropriating these funds who should be fired? Are these illegal payments or kickbacks? What is the deal? I cannot write or call my congresspeople to complain about a program I do not know the name of or whether it even exists other than that a poster on an internet board, who I do not personally know, told me it does. What do you propose we do about this program? Lets work to end the program, that solves the problem right? Should we only be angry towards the beneficiaries of a program that our duly elected officials passed into law? It seems to me that changing the laws should be easier and more cost efficient than rounding up the beneficiaries of these subsidies and sending them "home". If they could not get this money, would they not go "home" on their own? I am not taking this personally and I do not condone the practices under the skeletal guidelines you have so far described. I constantly hear people describe aliens getting stuff that citizens cannot. Now I would like to see some evidence of the laws that allow this. The idea that it exists troubles me too, but I do not know what the programs people are talking about are called under the laws. ~HAP

I am not sure in what circumstance you find yourself hearing these things from the very same people who are receiving these benefits. It seems an odd mix of conversation to be raised in a casual conversation. "I get this scholarship, but man, you americans suck and you owe me." I would be embarassed to say those things all at once to a stranger. Is this within your work arena or something? Wow, I did not know that veterans injured by friendly fire are not eleigible for disability or pensions. Do I remember that more of our soldiers in GulfWarI were killed by friendly fire than by the enemy? How about injuries? I do not know. Seems to be something terribly wrong with the VA if that is the case. Who can fix this problem? Who WILL fix this problem? Are you lobbying legislators to fix this problem? No government money is allocated without some guidelines embedded in law. What are the laws that need to be changed? How do we determine who are the persons "who wish to become part of this country"? What is the criteria we should use? Your thoughts? Q?. Should those immigrants who are working here and paying taxes and paying into SS, but who are here without legal papers, be allowed some of the benefits which citizens are allowed? Health care?, K-12 schooling? Others? Q?. I assume if illegal immigrants are paying into SS that they have a fake SS number. Is that true, or can they get a real SS # if they are not here legally. What if they are not citizens but here legally? ~HAP

People mention these government handouts quite regularly. Could someone please point me to a link where they are described on an official government website? Are they indeed grants that citizens cannot apply for? I know here in Colorado at state colleges and universities, a non-citizen must pay out of state tuition for college, even if they have been here their whole life and are A students. They are also not eleigible for any state funded scholarships, only private ones. I do not know about federal grants or funds. Can I see a site that describes them and the application process? I know that in some private schools, some grants/scholarships are available for foreign students only, but they are not government funded grants. Chatty- you said you looked into the program the guy at work referred to. can you share the link? ~HAP (hoping he does not back into a rose bush instead of a tulip field)

Chatty: I will tip toe with you for the time being, if I can find the tulips. May I ask what it is that is bugging you about these, before I step into something other than tulips? :blink: ~HAP

~HAP

Ron- I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that gun ownership and concealed carry is a God given natural right? If yes, could you explain how that is so? Could you define what you mean by a free citizen? Heretofore we have been talking about the LEGAL right to own or carry and that legal owners and carriers are likely to be safer to the public than illegal ones. I offered no dispute. You bring a different issue to the table, and I would like to have more understanding of what you mean before I might respond to it. Reminder: I HEREBY STATE I DO NOT CONTEST THE RIGHT OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP NOR LEGAL CARRY OF FIREARMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTANT LAWS OF THE NATION OR STATE IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL LIVES, OR TRAVELS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT MOST LEGAL CARRIERS OF FIREARMS ARE SAFER THAN ILLEGAL CARRIERS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT LEGAL OWNERS ARE SAFER AS A WHOLE THAN ILLEGAL OWNERS AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER SOME WHO COMMIT CRIMES COULD BE LEGAL OWNERS, AND SOME LEGAL OWNERS CAN AND WILL BECOME CRIMINALS. ~HAP

That is a different take on how this thread has raged and who "throwed da most mud" than I had. Which is the PC side? Maybe I have THAT part wrong? Interesting! ~HAP

happens to me at least once, usually more a session. It can be when switching forums, going from Chat to Forums, and MOST exasperating, after writing a post and clicking to submit it. In that case, after composing and clicking send, the screen comes up saying I can't do that. After logging back in, my post is gone. aarrrggghh I know I HAD been logged in, because I was posting in Politaks, which I cannot get to if I am not logged in. I just KNEW it was a plot by the conservatives here, or maybe it was GWB his blasted self! I have taken to using the default skin rather than the New Year one, at least that way I know if I am logged in or not. HAP

thank you HCW!

I am only irritated because this is the second thread in a row I have participated in where I apparently do not make myself clear on the gun subject, even though I have stated it numerous times. I will try a bigger font: HAPe4me HAS NOT contested 2nd amendment rights. HAPe4me does NOT TAKE a position on whether some people should own firearms. HAPe4me DOES think some should NOT own firearms. HAPe4me DOES NOT purport to care whether (most) people own carry, manufacture, buy, sell or trade firearms. HAPe4me WAS PREVIOUSLY seeking information on whether data supported the idea that people are truly safer due to legally owning firearms. HAPe4me HAS NOT YET formulated an opinion on such advisability since he has not yet found valid data for a few of the areas of interest related to that. as such, I make no contention on ANYONE's advisability. ~HAP

durn, there is no marbles emoticon. try these: Rascals marbles: ooooooooooooooo HAP's marbles: oooooo (a few less than you teehee) no problem Rascal. As you said, my statistics were unapplicable to the topic of the right to own. I simply do not have anything I wish to say on that subject beyond my first two paragraphs, and do not wish to participate in it. Just to make it clear to others, my conjecturing on advisability should not be construed as wishing for people to remain helpless, nor in any way was meant as casting a disparaging view on your right to own or carry. I said that a couple of times, but apparently the point was not made. I would have deleted the posts entirely, but that would have made a real confusing thread. ~HAP (a married liberal republican armed, trained, and like you, not dangerous)( I hope)

~HAP

Jonny good? where? maybe some decks of cards are less full than other less than full decks. LOL

OMIGOSH how hard can I laugh?????? thanks for the pick-me-up.

gad, and gadzooks! People here are worked up over the word "bidness" as being supposedly low class and an undesirable word for upwardly mobile youth? Yet not one word is espoused concerning the flagrant use of the F word by others? What's up with that? it's sad and unbecoming coming from anyone. Is there a place to put an R or X rating on this OPEN FORUM THREAD? ~HAP

That probably is true, however I do not know what you mean by "on the surface". What do you think on the surface, my thoughts are? Until the start of this thread, I had not thought about what statistical data might show as to the advisability of owning/carrying. I still do not know the answers to most or perhaps any of that question. When all is weighed together, is there significant benefit to having a gun on your person? Is there significant benefit to having a gun in your home? How significant? At this point, I am not sure of the answer. When one weighs in the data on suicide by firearm, I admit I am leaning to the "too close to call" thought, or "pick-em". ~HAP Note/reminder: the author makes no argument herein concerning the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. All his comments should be taken in light of his question of whether or not it is advisable for a priivate citizen to own or carry firearms, and especially as supported by statistical data. Author further wishes to point out that he believes the definition of the words statistics, statistical data, bias and unbiased is a matter of interpretation in itself, and thusly may not lend itself to a true answer to his question. Any representation by others of his comments as being other than the aforementioned should be taken as "in the opinion of whoever makes such other representation". Respectfully, me.

In response to my post immediately above, about "how many times"... I found the following, which I believe to be as unbiased as I could find. I choose not to cite either the NRA or the Brady Foundation. The numbers are from a table entitled Odds of Death Due to Injury United States 2003 created by the National Safety Council. They list far more ways of dying than I could ever have thought of! Since the table is not limited to firearms I consider it to be simply statistical data as opposed to "statistics used to prove a point". You can find it here" http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm The numbers they show relative to this discussion are as follows for 2003 in the United States: Legal Intervention involving firearms 347 occurances Accidental death from firearms discharge 730 Intentional self-harm deaths by firearm 16907 Event of undetermined intent- firearm 232 Assault by firearm (intentional) 11920 I expect that the "legal Intervention" number includes police as well as citizen initiated occurances. Obviously, the "assault by firearm" iincludes all homicide, not just "passion, roadrage etc. which I was looking for. I would still like to know how many deaths from firearms in that area occur. The second most frequent method of killing by assault is by "sharp object" at 2049. The Suicide number by firearms (16907) is interesting, as the second most used method of suicide is hanging/intentional strangulation at 6635 and third is intentional self poisoning at 5462 occurrences. I wonder how many suicides would go unrealized without the ever-present availability of firearms. Perhaps many, perhaps not. I find it interesting that twice as many deaths by accidental discharge occurred than deaths due to legal intervention. I do however understand, that part of the thinking of owning firearms for protection is that a danger can be suppressed, hopefully without necessarily needing to fire a shot. These numbers do not show up here. (i.e. how many homicides did NOT occur because a citizen was armed) Locating valid and unbiased data on this is difficult it appears so far. Every side seems to have very different numbers to show proving their points in locations where carry/possession laws have been eased or tightened. I'm going peacefully to bed now. ~HAP (edited for being off topic)

I do not recall some people being upset at the thought of individual people being armed on that thread, it certainly was not me, and I did not read P-mosh that way, but I will have to go back and look later. There were other issues involved in those discussions beyond individual gun ownership or carry laws. No oppositon to owning guns from me, and yes I do own a couple. Even used them. Shoot, just last October I got busted in Germany for having a live .38 round in my ditty bag at the airport (checked luggage). 50€ fine (about $66). I was told by a big burley Polizei, (auf Deutsch) that "this is a serious problem having a bullet in Germany" (not a gun, just a bullet, mind you). You are a bad leebural HAP, bad leebural! I do not raise the following issues to be contentious, I believe they are good, honest, need-to-be answered issues. Certainly appropriate to this discussion. I do have a problem with carrying guns in certain places. Schools, government offices, sporting events, churches, places of mass assembly....... I feel the propensity for something going wrong, is too great there. Not so much by the person who is legally licensed to carry, but by accidental possibilities including but not limited to misuse, being disarmed in a scuffle, or someone other than a criminal being injured if for some reason the weapon is pulled out...... It would however be interesting to see a comparison of how often: 1) a person was successful in defending themselves with a gun when in "imminent danger" 2) a serious accidental injury or death ocurred due to mishandling of privately owned weapons 3) a legally owned weapon was used used in the commission of a crime of passion or anger. It seems to me that every few YEARS we do hear of someone who kills an intruder in their home, legally, under "Make My Day" laws. It also seems to me, every few MONTHS we hear of an incident where a child is killed or hurt when they somehow get ahold of a parent's gun from the nightstand, or someone accidently fires a weapon not in the course of protecting (cleaning, demonstrating, etc.) Also every few months someone gets ticked off at someone else and fires off at the target of their anger (marital dispute, road rage etc.) Does anyone have real numbers on these? Are they collected by any non-biased side? I sometimes wonder if our society is fooling itself by thinking it is safer by arming itself. Sure some FEEL safer, but are they? If in immenent danger, would you have the time or would you have the ability, or would you have the nerves to use that weapon. this, versus using that time to get away (it is likely you are mainly afraid because the intruder is likely to be also armed). If indeed you are in close proximity to your danger, are you physically capable to prevail if your target gets close enough to try and wrestle the gun away? I understand that current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to own. The 2nd does not say you HAVE to own, but do legitiimate statistics really support that more are safer because of private ownership? Are more alive because of it? I wonder. I know I certainly felt quite safe strolling the late night streets of Dresden, Frankfurt, Eppstein, Siena, Rome, Venice, everywhere I could, we went down dark narrow blind alleys, corners of plazas, wherever. (I enjoyed seeing the "non-touristy" views.) There is not a lot of private gun ownership there, however there are many more visible police, carbineri etc. Many of them simply walk around in pairs, not in cars. Perhaps they are the difference. Would a larger police force (or a more visible one) be a better answer? ~HAP (edited for being off topic)

Tom- IMNSHO, this was a good post. thank you for writing. I agree especially with your description concerning "white flight". When I read the word in CW's post, it never crossed my mind that it would be considered an attack, let alone considered one of the worst personal attacks on this thread. I have heard the term for years, as have most who have participated in issues around inner city schools. It is a common term heard (to name one of many) in discussions about keeping racial balance in public schools in areas that have gone under court mandated desegregation plans and equal educational opportunity laws. Concerning your comments on "prejudice", I agree it is there. Prejucice is not necessarily limited to racial prejudice. I would go further, to say there have been some indications of racial prejudice as well. It does exist, and is something few would admit. It just sometimes leaks out, from all sides of the racial spectrum. It is hideous from any source. Next, frankly, in my opinion, (probably worth everything that is paid for it), at least two have made allusions to personal things about CW. I am amazed they have not been deleted because of their private and personal nature whether true or not. I have no idea why such information should be shared in an open thread, IM, or anywhere else. Back to the subject of the thread, I cannot take issue with anything CW has said concerning dealing with gangs. It is not defending gangs to seek ways to help children youth or adults to find alternatives to this path without shooting them first and asking questions later. Keep up the good work CW, you will be rewarded now in personal satisfaction, and if certain interpretations of the Bible are true, in the life beyond. In any case, those you help will benefit and so will society. ~HAP

Since I do not know what threads were deleted, and my posts are still intact, I assume he did not mean this part of the discussion. Just the same, I will make one more clarification. I never expressed any outrage WHATSOEVER at the desire to defend a neighborhood. You made that up. The only position I staked was that it was not advisable for an individual to approach "alot of gang members", armed or not, to which Jonny and Eagle have both graciously agreed. do you get it yet? If not, like I said before, go ahead and try it. (with your adrenaline and testosterone flowing heavily of course) ~HAP (riding off on that proverbial dead horse) (MY APOLOGIES, PAW, IF THESE ARE THE RESPONSES YOU REFERRED TO- GO AHEAD AND DELETE IN THAT CASE)

Thank you also for you explanation jonny. I was working from the first paragraph and I assumed your comment was also related to it, since it IS what you quoted prior to your "better by 12 than 6" comment. I can only understand things as they are written. ~HAP