Job Discussion Forums

[asiannationmc]

[Wolfsong]

[Wolfsong]

[Wolfsong]

[nomad soul]

[Wolfsong]

[Wolfsong]

[adventious]

[Wolfsong]

[adventious]

Where's that PC Parrot member? I miss them right now.
You are simply denying one set of semantics to assert another.
You are making a zero-sum argument, but prefer the descriptors of finite and infinite.

The policies and procedures by which republics allocate resources is a compromise of principles; Policy works within constraints. Learning why immigrant status hasn't been made a priority in higher education, the culture and traditions of that evolution, is a matter you'd prefer to defer because ignorance reinforces itself this way.

Simply identifying a category of recipient and asserting their inclusion denies others is facile and conjectures in terms of regulation you can neither describe nor name.

And why is that? Because the world is "stacked" against some other category of recipient?
Because vast conspiracies are afoot to change the nature of a golden age of government in which only the deserving were served?

There is simply no agency to enforce the fair allocation you'd prefer with its requisite database, design thereof, administration, security procedures, weighted variables, and on and on.

From your armchair, a conclusion that undocumented immigrants (or illegal immigrants if you prefer) should be denied x and y resources/privileges might have an appeal, but no implementation other than authoritarian edicts contrary to little things like The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

But that's nothing new.

And I think you're either willfully ignorant or disingenuous. You're likely old enough to know scholarships, programs, etc., must be actively sought as well as knowledge of their schedule, qualifying criteria, etc.

Monies are made available and people apply-- what measures ensure they're pursued by the greatest number of people for the best possible reasons is missing a criterion you'd prefer it didn't-- end of story.

Your argument is one of many bullies before and it's shameful.

[johnslat]

Dear wangdaning,

For your edification, a history of executive orders:


"Heavy use of EOs is only with the most recent 3-4 presidents."

Nope, not at all. FDR, Hoover, and Wilson issued the most, by a long shot, compared to Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, and George H.W. Bush. In fact, Harrison, Cleveland, and McKinley all issued more executive orders than Obama has. Please see the chart by clicking on the link.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

"An executive order is not a law, it is an order. They have the "force" of law, but that does not make them law."

May the Force be with you. Having the force of law is good enough for me.

Still awaiting your example(s) of a local area deciding to deny it. Or is it a non-problem?

Regards,
John

[wangdaning]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=local+areas+denying+executive+orders

I am not your student and not trying to prove anything. You can deny it but you are only fooling yourself.

[spiral78]

[johnslat]

Dear wandaning,

And thank goodness you're not my student. You were totally wrong about this:

"Heavy use of EOs is only with the most recent 3-4 presidents."

But refuse to accept facts.

Regards,
John

[adventious]