@THEBLESSED:


Still waiting for your response on the other E-coli thread

You have 12 hours to download WIZKID's new album on alabaonline.com So hurry. Hope you love WIZZY like I do, if you do then don't forget to follow him on Twitter & Facebook and help spread the word about WIZKID. Please send forward this to all your friends. http://alabaonline.com/

@Theblessed (f)

You have good points. However what one should know certain individuals in the Western world  speak as if other Nations have no sovereignty.


If you have noted the current  Libyan crisis you see various officials in The American State Department  speaking as if it owns Libya.

If a Village Arabic Speaking Libyan had this translated,For example: "The State Department",  wants Quadaffi to resign. Who?, what state department?

It is better to say exactly the Nation in reference especially in all the crisis of todays world.

manny4life:


And the court system determines when Congress has over breached it's authority. The court system interprets what regulating laws are constitutional or not

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided long ago that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the explicit, plenary power to regulate immigration. That issue has been long decided since the 1700s. It is old, rotten news.

What make you guys think it is nigerians that is suing the US Dept of state. The class action law suit is made by some of the winners according to the article.

JeSoul:

    you have not seen some fantastic spin from some lawyers . . .

"Your Honor, the incredibly difficult and depressed economic and social climate of Nigeria has been a constant scourge on the lives of my clients. The combination of lack of basic amenities, lack of security, lack on employment forced my clients to seek a better life elsewhere. The US state dept promised them a chance at this opportunity if they applied - which they did. They had no other choice and hence were forced to apply. To now rescind this hope of a better life due to the negligence of the US govt amounts to emotional assault and battery. My clients are seeking damages as this has caused a great deal of emotional distress to them and their families."

. . sister i don't see them winning this case, some pple have won it in the past but were turned down at the interview stage but they did not sue, like somebody mentioned here, its the lawyers who will benefit from this, if this pple won this case then the 10% of pple who were not selected by the computer for the draw will sue as well.

I have always believe on applicants getting their visas on merit rather than on lottery I think its about time the USA stop this primitive way of awarding immigrants visa why not take a cue from Canada and Australia?

For those who think Nigerians are the one suing, no they are not. All the 22,000 winners that were previously selected are the one suing. The group had small chance of entering the US even if they won the case. The State Department categorically states that your selection does not guarantee you a visa because there are so many steps after selection before the visa.

The facebook page of the group however shows that they are garnering the support of politicians in the US for their cause. Some of those who "like" their page include Barack Obama, Christiane Amanpour, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, etc

hardbody:

They should argue from the equitable position that you cannot approbate and reprobate. The US government cannot blow hot and cold the same time. They have been made to change their positions by the preliminary announcement and communication that they have won the lottery. Consequent upon this, they resigned their lucrative jobs, sold their houses and cars and took all other necessary steps preparatory to leaving their shores and the sudden change in deceision has brought them so much untold hardship and they seek for specific performance. This is an open and close case, they will all be called in again for the interview. AND THEN THEY WILL ALL FAIL TO BE SELECTED. Case closed.

I beg to disagree with the bolded. Your selection does not guarantee you a visa. Resigning your job and selling your property is a negligence on your part and the State Department cannot be liable for that. Even if they won the case, your last two sentences can still hold which makes it a lose-lose situation for the group.

^^^

My post was really intended as a pun to confirm ur last position namely, its gonna be a lose ilose situation for the claimant applicants, Buh am sure to make an impact if i handled the claim, lol^

I applaud the U.S. for their actions concerning the lottery. I think any
other actions allowing more unemployed individuals into the U.S. should be suspended as well.
Last week the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 9.1%. I doubt very many of these 22,000
people are wealthy so I have to wonder what exactly their plans were once they'd gotten to the United
States. What exactly are these 22,000 people going to do to make a living in America that the U.S. citizens haven't already thought of?
At some point a great many of these people would become liabilities to the U.S. taxpayers,
which is not fair to U.S. citizens. The U.S. has people who've worked, lived and paid taxes in this country
all of their lives. So many jobs in the U.S. have downsized leaving people out of work. Those
individuals should be the main priority of the U.S. government.

Thirst4Lif:

I applaud the U.S. for their actions concerning the lottery. I think any
other actions allowing more unemployed individuals into the U.S. should be suspended as well.
Last week the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 9.1%. I doubt very many of these 22,000
people are wealthy so I have to wonder what exactly their plans were once they'd gotten to the United
States. What exactly are these 22,000 people going to do to make a living in America that the U.S. citizens haven't already thought of?
At some point a great many of these people would become liabilities to the U.S. taxpayers,
which is not fair to U.S. citizens. The U.S. has people who've worked, lived and paid taxes in this country
all of their lives. So many jobs in the U.S. have downsized leaving people out of work. Those
individuals should be the main priority of the U.S. government.

You need to get a life man! unemployment is 9.1% in US so what? in the past we have seen many immigrants becoming successful in the midst of the so called unemployment so even if this unemployment rises beyond the present state the US will still require and welcome immigrants.

Princek12:

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided long ago that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the explicit, plenary power to regulate immigration. That issue has been long decided since the 1700s. It is old, rotten news.

Who is saying that the Constitution did not grant them the power? The U.S. Constitution gave Congress power to make, regulate and restrict laws (not only immigration laws), at same time the constitution said Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of the people (including immigrants et al even terrorist are enjoy most rights of a U.S. citizen). Just in case you missed what you said, here is what u said

The people who are filing the lawsuit are just wasting their money on lawyer fees. The Congress of the United States has the plenary power to decide who enters and does not enter the United States. They can pretty much do whatever they can as to regulating immigration.

My response to you was for the bold and will say it again

And the court system determines when Congress has over breached it's authority. The court system interprets what regulating laws are constitutional or not


In other words, Congress DOES NOT do whatever they like; however, if they did, that why the court system is there to block those administrative decisions or overturn such decisions. There are tons of cases that have been overturned by the Federal Courts, Circuit Appeals Court and even SCOTUS.

manny4life:


Who is saying that the Constitution did not grant them the power? The U.S. Constitution gave Congress power to make, regulate and restrict laws (not only immigration laws), at same time the constitution said Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of the people (including immigrants et al even terrorist are enjoy most rights of a U.S. citizen). Just in case you missed what you said, here is what u said

The people who are filing the lawsuit are just wasting their money on lawyer fees. The Congress of the United States has the plenary power to decide who enters and does not enter the United States. They can pretty much do whatever they can as to regulating immigration.

My response to you was for the bold and will say it again

And the court system determines when Congress has over breached it's authority. The court system interprets what regulating laws are constitutional or not


In other words, Congress DOES NOT do whatever they like; however, if they did, that why the court system is there to block those administrative decisions or overturn such decisions. There are tons of cases that have been overturned by the Federal Courts, Circuit Appeals Court and even SCOTUS.

correct talk

tunnytox:

You need to get a life man! unemployment is 9.1% in US so what? in the past we have seen many immigrants becoming successful in the midst of the so called unemployment so even if this unemployment rises beyond the present state the US will still require and welcome immigrants.

Sweet Talk

manny4life:


Who is saying that the Constitution did not grant them the power? The U.S. Constitution gave Congress power to make, regulate and restrict laws (not only immigration laws), at same time the constitution said Congress shall make no law abridging the right[/b]s of the people (including immigrants et al even terrorist are enjoy most rights of a U.S. citizen). Just in case you missed what you said, here is what u said

The people who are filing the lawsuit are just wasting their money on lawyer fees. The Congress of the United States has the plenary power to decide who enters and does not enter the United States. [b]They can pretty much do whatever they can as to regulating immigration.

My response to you was for the bold and will say it again

And the court system determines when Congress has over breached it's authority. The court system interprets what regulating laws are constitutional or not


In other words, Congress DOES NOT do whatever they like; however, if they did, that why the court system is there to block those administrative decisions or overturn such decisions. There are tons of cases that have been overturned by the Federal Courts, Circuit Appeals Court and even SCOTUS.

Yes I said it. Congress has the plenary power to regulate immigration. Now tell me how has Congress made any laws abridging the rights of the people? And a lot of the people who are suing have not even set foot in the U.S. nor are they U.S. citizens nor are they within the custody of the United States government, so they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. And for the ones who may be in the U.S. they have no case as to whether Congress made any law that abridged their rights.

You know nothing about U.S. immigration history. At one time, Congress made a law that allowed only whites to naturalize. At one point, Congress made Chinese exclusion laws that limited the amount of Chinese that could enter the U.S. In all those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all those laws. U.S. Congress abolished all racial barriers to naturalization in 1952.

There are rights, and there are what we call fundamental rights. U.S. Congress makes laws that tramples upon the rights of people everyday, as long as there are justifications for doing so. Your fundamental right is another issue, and the Court will generally not uphold any law that tramples upon the fundamental rights of people, unless there are compelling justifications and the law does not trample upon the rights more than necessary to achieve the compelling justifications. But it is rare that Congress will win in court if it makes a law that abridges upon the fundamental rights of its people.

Those immigrants have no fundamental right to immigrate into the United States. Winning the lottery is not even a guarantee that they will be given permanent resident cards, anyway.

If you don't know anything or depend on wikipedia for your knowledge shut up.

Princek12:

Yes I said it. Congress has the plenary power to regulate immigration. Now tell me how has Congress made any laws abridging the rights of the people? And a lot of the people who are suing have not even set foot in the U.S. nor are they U.S. citizens nor are they within the custody of the United States government, so they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. And for the ones who may be in the U.S. they have no case as to whether Congress made any law that abridged their rights.

You know nothing about U.S. immigration history. At one time, Congress made a law that allowed only whites to naturalize. At one point, Congress made Chinese exclusion laws that limited the amount of Chinese that could enter the U.S. In all those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all those laws. U.S. Congress abolished all racial barriers to naturalization in 1952.

There are rights, and there are what we call fundamental rights. U.S. Congress makes laws that tramples upon the rights of people everyday, as long as there are justifications for doing so. Your fundamental right is another issue, and the Court will generally not uphold any law that tramples upon the fundamental rights of people, unless there are compelling justifications and the law does not trample upon the rights more than necessary to achieve the compelling justifications. But it is rare that Congress will win in court if it makes a law that abridges upon the fundamental rights of its people.

Those immigrants have no fundamental right to immigrate into the United States. Winning the lottery is not even a guarantee that they will be given permanent resident cards, anyway.

If you don't know anything or depend on wikipedia for your knowledge shut up.

Some F1 and BH holders won too.

Princek12:

Yes I said it. Congress has the plenary power to regulate immigration. Now tell me how has Congress made any laws abridging the rights of the people? And a lot of the people who are suing have not even set foot in the U.S. nor are they U.S. citizens nor are they within the custody of the United States government, so they are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. And for the ones who may be in the U.S. they have no case as to whether Congress made any law that abridged their rights.

You know nothing about U.S. immigration history. At one time, Congress made a law that allowed only whites to naturalize. At one point, Congress made Chinese exclusion laws that limited the amount of Chinese that could enter the U.S. In all those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld all those laws. U.S. Congress abolished all racial barriers to naturalization in 1952.

There are rights, and there are what we call fundamental rights. U.S. Congress makes laws that tramples upon the rights of people everyday, as long as there are justifications for doing so. Your fundamental right is another issue, and the Court will generally not uphold any law that tramples upon the fundamental rights of people, unless there are compelling justifications and the law does not trample upon the rights more than necessary to achieve the compelling justifications. But it is rare that Congress will win in court if it makes a law that abridges upon the fundamental rights of its people.

Those immigrants have no fundamental right to immigrate into the United States. Winning the lottery is not even a guarantee that they will be given permanent resident cards, anyway.

If you don't know anything or depend on wikipedia for your knowledge shut up.

Dude you going around in circle; you are saying something entirely different from my own point of view.  Ok. Mr.  Constitutional Law, please tell us

a. What parts of U.S.C. sections stated Congress can do whatever they like ?

b. In addition, please quote “” what laws are guided under U.S. immigration laws enacted by Congress. Also, would love for you to give us a breakdown about immigration history since you started it.

c. How many laws have Congress enacted that "tramples on people right” and not their "fundamental right”? I.E. if I have a clue what right you're talking about. Please state as many as you can, would be nice to know some of them.

d. Please my brother, you are here telling me “there are rights” and “fundamental rights”? Oh boy, please distinguish the two? What kind of “rights” are you talking about? The use of the word “rights” is ambiguous.  There are constitutional rights, like you said fundamental rights, human rights, natural rights, Legal rights, et.al. What “rights” are you talking about? Please be more specific.


A fundamental right is one that encompasses al l rights. In Civics, a fundamental right is one that applies to all; it’s pre-existing because people’s lives depend on it. These rights are so fundament al for peace, happiness and security of the people. The free movement of people or person(s) (aka migration) is a Fundamental Right. So go figure when you say they don’t have a fundamental right to migrate to migrate to the U.S,  They have a right to, question is does the U.S. recognize such rights? Answer is that they do.

I’m NOT claiming expertise on the subject matter, but at least you can cite the case where SCOTUS upheld these laws that you claimed that congress enacted. This case will be a long standing precedent at least within the judicial system i.e. if it hasn’t been overturned or reversed by the later justices. I like to know more, so please when next you reply, please cite your cases evenly. I promise, I will go back and research all these by myself.

Mr. Constitutional Law, I will be waiting on you, and for the record, I don’t use WIKI, anyone who knows and has followed my 1,700+ post knows I have been a strong critic about that website. Why would I want to use WIKI when I have access to archived materials online or view Congress website? Doesn’t make sense if you ask me; therefore I don’t see the reason why you so worked about me shutting up, looks like I’m working your nerves.

the u.s congree has reached an agreement yesterday to amend the immigration constitutional act that will lead to the elimination of the DV lottery programme. There will no longer be diversity immigrant visa to the u.s again based on pure luvk because its a threat to united states borders and a way for terrorist to enter the country. Bob goodlate says. U can read more about ir here http://judiciary.house.gov/news/07202011.html

About time I don't think it's right for some ppl to just be able to migrate to USA based on lottery. US is such a big country with an highly developed economy they should put an appropriate program in place to attract the very best skilled or semi skilled workers based on their economic needs rather than using lottery.