I don't know the details, but once someone is in the country, legal or illegal, they are afforded certain constitutional protections. The government cannot start discriminating on race base just because the individual is an illegal alien for example. I am not sure exactly how they have standing to bring the suit itself but if they suffered some harm from an illegal type of discrimination then they still might be able to be complainants. They could always hear the lawsuit and then have them deported.

I haven't looked up the case/article, but I think the suit was about race discrimination.  IIRC, something about targeting undocumented (or illegal) immigrants unfairly targets Latinos or other race.  Haven't heard much about it since, but still wonder how someone who is in the country illegally can bring such a suit.  Understand that many times logic and common sense aren't part of the process, but if the person isn't supposed to be in the US in the first place, then there wouldn't be a question of whether or not a law IN THE US would be discriminating against them.  Just like I don't understand how someone can sue a homeowner for their dog attacking them while they were breaking into the house.  They weren't supposed to be there in the first place!  Don't want the dog to bite you in the ass and otherwise mess you up?  Well, the person had a choice to enter someone else's private property illegally.  Once they made that choice, everything else is on them.  Consequences of actions.  That's something that seems to be forgotten these days. . .

While maybe some of Trump's orders may not be constitutional, but they are in efforts to better protect the American people!  While the policies that may discriminate, insult, oppress, whatever people from other countries, my impression is that these are all in effort to make America safer.  I believe that was a big part of what got him elected and I am happy to see him acting on that.  Yes, my ancestors immigrated to Hawaii from another country.  While I am thankful for them having the opportunity to immigrate and settle in Hawaii, I am an American and I want to feel that it is a priority to take care of Americans first, before looking to be humanitarian to other countries.  I certainly feel for what is going on and maybe banning immigrants from certain countries won't help reduce or eliminate terrorism, but it shows placing value on protecting the homeland.  Just my opinion. . .

The government doesn't have to, and is not discriminating in any way based on race. If an individual is here illegally they are breaking the law. Period. The government has the right to detain them and prosecute and deport. That is in no way discrimination based on race, religion or otherwise. It is people lying about being singled out because of their race and religion. Not sure what you are trying to get at here?

That and certain media outlets maintaining that is the issue, while either being ignorant of the issues or flat out making is a "propo" issue. 

Wasn't there a suit or something by undocumented immigrants in CA (I think or maybe AZ) about a law being unconstitutional? I'll have to look it up. It surprised me when I first heard about it. Something about discrimination aimed at a particular group, or something like that. I was more wondering how undocumented (or illegal) immigrants can file a lawsuit, and more about how law enforcement couldn't find and at least investigate their status.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The undocumenteds don't actually file the lawsuit. The ACLU or NAACP files it on their behalf.

...While maybe some of Trump's orders may not be constitutional, but they are in efforts to better protect the American people!  While the policies that may discriminate, insult, oppress, whatever people from other countries, my impression is that these are all in effort to make America safer.  I believe that was a big part of what got him elected and I am happy to see him acting on that.  Yes, my ancestors immigrated to Hawaii from another country.  While I am thankful for them having the opportunity to immigrate and settle in Hawaii, I am an American and I want to feel that it is a priority to take care of Americans first, before looking to be humanitarian to other countries.  I certainly feel for what is going on and maybe banning immigrants from certain countries won't help reduce or eliminate terrorism, but it shows placing value on protecting the homeland.  Just my opinion. . .

That and certain media outlets maintaining that is the issue, while either being ignorant of the issues or flat out making is a "propo" issue.

If what he is doing is unconstitutional the lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be going after whatever part is unconstitutional. As it turns out, the lawsuit they filed mentions nothing about what Trump did as being unconstitutional. So by default what he is doing is within the guidelines of the constitution. They are only stating that what he is doing is racist. They are hoping that it goes up in front of an immigrant/minority liberal judge and then they will hope he rules in their favor. Except at the lower courts where divisiveness is rampant this lawsuit doesn't stand a chance and won't hold up.

They don't stand a chance trying to bring a suit as Trumps actions as being unconstitutional.

The undocumenteds don't actually file the lawsuit. The ACLU or NAACP files it on their behalf.

Yeah, I got the part on filing on their behalf.  It was sort of a mostly sarcastic wonder.  Was more thinking it was like someone who is wanted getting goaded by ego (or whatever other reason) into correcting someone about their illegal action, and getting found and caught.

If what he is doing is unconstitutional the lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be going after whatever part is unconstitutional. As it turns out, the lawsuit they filed mentions nothing about what Trump did as being unconstitutional. So by default what he is doing is within the guidelines of the constitution. They are only stating that what he is doing is racist. They are hoping that it goes up in front of an immigrant/minority liberal judge and then they will hope he rules in their favor. Except at the lower courts where divisiveness is rampant this lawsuit doesn't stand a chance and won't hold up.

They don't stand a chance trying to bring a suit as Trumps actions as being unconstitutional.

Yeah, I should read up more on the details of such lawsuits and such. 

Yeah, I got the part on filing on their behalf.  It was sort of a mostly sarcastic wonder.  Was more thinking it was like someone who is wanted getting goaded by ego (or whatever other reason) into correcting someone about their illegal action, and getting found and caught.


Yeah, I should read up more on the details of such lawsuits and such.

Don't you just love our justice/legal system? [/sarcasm]

Don't you just love our justice/legal system? [/sarcasm]

Well, uh, what?  Haha

I've been, or my former company has been, on the losing side of a lawsuit that I thought had NO chance in losing, so my thoughts are a bit jaded on the matter.

It was a while ago, but I'll try to recall the details best as I can.  My company is the designer of record for improvements to a section of a highway.  A drunk driver, I believe was going in excess of 90 mph in a 45 or maybe 50 mph posted zone, crashes through a guardrail, and dies.  Family sued the state , but I don't recall what the details of the lawsuit was, but as designer of record, my company got pulled in.  In independent review, it was determined that the highway was designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable design standards.  Standard of care was DEFINITELY verified here.  Not sure if arbitration or mediation was an offered as an option, but it went to trial.  Anyways, the jury found that the state and my former company was as fault and provided a deficient design.  That the state and designer of record should have anticipated drunk drivers and designed accordingly.  I'd have to look it up, but even for 45 mph posted, the rails are typically rated for at least 60 mph and probably even more as the ratings are minimums.  Tell me how it is reasonable to account for someone doing close to 2x the posted speed limit, drunk and hope to protect them?  Sigh.  Anyways, that experience really jaded me.  I've heard that nowadays, mediation with a judge or authority or committer that has at least some technical knowledge is more common and I believe would've helped in that case, but I don't think anyone envisioned that the drunk driver doing 90 mph would be due compensation. 

Well, uh, what?  Haha

I've been, or my former company has been, on the losing side of a lawsuit that I thought had NO chance in losing, so my thoughts are a bit jaded on the matter.

It was a while ago, but I'll try to recall the details best as I can.  My company is the designer of record for improvements to a section of a highway.  A drunk driver, I believe was going in excess of 90 mph in a 45 or maybe 50 mph posted zone, crashes through a guardrail, and dies.  Family sued the state , but I don't recall what the details of the lawsuit was, but as designer of record, my company got pulled in.  In independent review, it was determined that the highway was designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable design standards.  Standard of care was DEFINITELY verified here.  Not sure if arbitration or mediation was an offered as an option, but it went to trial.  Anyways, the jury found that the state and my former company was as fault and provided a deficient design.  That the state and designer of record should have anticipated drunk drivers and designed accordingly.  I'd have to look it up, but even for 45 mph posted, the rails are typically rated for at least 60 mph and probably even more as the ratings are minimums.  Tell me how it is reasonable to account for someone doing close to 2x the posted speed limit, drunk and hope to protect them?  Sigh.  Anyways, that experience really jaded me.  I've heard that nowadays, mediation with a judge or authority or committer that has at least some technical knowledge is more common and I believe would've helped in that case, but I don't think anyone envisioned that the drunk driver doing 90 mph would be due compensation.

I used to work for a soils engineering company. About every year or two we would be sued. Any time something happens to a building after construction the lawyers sue everyone involved. So if a building was built with one less floor than as planned and a lawsuit entails then the soils engineers get sued as well. About every 4-5 years they would lose and have to pay a part of the judgement since they were co-defendants. It didn't matter if they had any part in the real problem or not. Of course the insurance would pay and then drop them like a hot potato. Since they cannot run a business without insurance they would try and get another company to cover them and they could not get new insurance or the rates were so high it was prohibitive. So their lawyers came up with a plan. They close their doors on a Friday and re-open them under a new name/company on Monday and they were able to get reasonable insurance. They did this 3 times. Twice before my time and once while I was there. Spent all day on the Saturday in between closing and opening painting the new name of the company on the trucks and drill rigs. 

I used to work for a soils engineering company. About every year or two we would be sued. Any time something happens to a building after construction the lawyers sue everyone involved. So if a building was built with one less floor than as planned and a lawsuit entails then the soils engineers get sued as well. About every 4-5 years they would lose and have to pay a part of the judgement since they were co-defendants. It didn't matter if they had any part in the real problem or not. Of course the insurance would pay and then drop them like a hot potato. Since they cannot run a business without insurance they would try and get another company to cover them and they could not get new insurance or the rates were so high it was prohibitive. So their lawyers came up with a plan. They close their doors on a Friday and re-open them under a new name/company on Monday and they were able to get reasonable insurance. They did this 3 times. Twice before my time and once while I was there. Spent all day on the Saturday in between closing and opening painting the new name of the company on the trucks and drill rigs. 

Yeah, I've had experience with the "shotgun" approach. The company that I worked with when I lived in Seattle stopped doing residential for a while.  We were a civil and structural firm, but we would always get sucked in.  Damn attorneys going around to home owners associations, doing "inspections" and basically telling the association that they can get them money.  Well, the company successfully fought of most, but had to pay for legal fees. The only ones making the money were the attorneys, who were "smart" enough to have the homeowners association on a fee structure that wasn't based on outcome.  Basically they would go after buildings that leak and that's usually all the architect, but the big money is in the team, like you mentioned. 

Mechanical (HVAC) and Geotech/Soils seem to get sued most often.  Building settlement is a real PITA.  I investigated a bunch of those and it's tough to determine fault either way.  Stuff gets old, ground changes, etc.  We even have people trying to claim for ground settlement after earthquakes.  We go to do a site visit and see cracking in concrete walls, CMU walls, etc.  Thing is, there's stuff GROWING IN THE CRACKS!  It's not like any of the cracks were new! 

The government doesn't have to, and is not discriminating in any way based on race. If an individual is here illegally they are breaking the law. Period. The government has the right to detain them and prosecute and deport. That is in no way discrimination based on race, religion or otherwise. It is people lying about being singled out because of their race and religion. Not sure what you are trying to get at here?

I was commenting on drck1000's comment about how illegals could bring suit in a US court. I am not suggesting that stoping and deporting illegal aliens is unconstitutional. drck1000's comments don't have context or a link with details of what forms of discrimination are being alleged so it is really just speculating at this point.

It's been a while, but I think these are about the lawsuit I heard about.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/03/08/illegal-aliens-suing-for-right-to-obtain-driver-licenses/

http://ijr.com/2015/12/483387-483387/

I thought it was CA, but maybe OR as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wasn't there a suit or something by undocumented immigrants in CA (I think or maybe AZ) about a law being unconstitutional? I'll have to look it up. It surprised me when I first heard about it. Something about discrimination aimed at a particular group, or something like that. I was more wondering how undocumented (or illegal) immigrants can file a lawsuit, and more about how law enforcement couldn't find and at least investigate their status.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh, I was shocked myself when I found out that undocumented ALIENS can and HAVE served in our ARMED FORCES.

Huh, I was shocked myself when I found out that undocumented ALIENS can and HAVE served in our ARMED FORCES.

Undocumented? Or illegal? Not that it makes a big difference for this conversation. Just curious.

Did they become citizens after honorable discharge? Sort of reminds me of the movie Starship Troopers where serving was path to citizenship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about illegal, but many can, and do, get citizenship by serving. 

Undocumented? Or illegal? Not that it makes a big difference for this conversation. Just curious.

Did they become citizens after honorable discharge? Sort of reminds me of the movie Starship Troopers where serving was path to citizenship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't recall exactly. I just remember that when I read that, the article said that since these guys served in our Armed Forces, there should be a way for them to be full citizens.

It was really shocking to me because I thought we'd seriously vet everyone joining the military, of all things.

Note that I am not saying these guys don't deserve to be citizens. Just the vetting process was actually not there.

For the purposes of undocumented, I don't agree kids or people who were kids when their parents brought them over illegally, should suffer.

There was this case of the ethnic Korean who was adopted into the USA and now they kicked him out because his stupid adoptive parents didn't file the right papers for him to actually gain citizenship, That is fucked up.

Now another abuse of power, and a possible violation of law. Trump tweeted about his wife's jewelry line and then the presidential account retweeted that message. Trump is using the officer of the presidency for personal gain and this is certainly an ethical concern. Trump may be good for us on certain issues but he doesn't seem concerned about abuse of power.

I heard it was against the law for the president to use his office to promote a product during a radio interview however I am trying to find which law specifically.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-nordstrom-ivanka-20170208-story.html

Now another abuse of power, and a possible violation of law. Trump tweeted about his wife's jewelry line and then the presidential account retweeted that message. Trump is using the officer of the presidency for personal gain and this is certainly an ethical concern. Trump may be good for us on certain issues but he doesn't seem concerned about abuse of power.

I heard it was against the law for the president to use his office to promote a product during a radio interview however I am trying to find which law specifically.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-nordstrom-ivanka-20170208-story.html

I can agree with this.  He shouldn't be promoting his own business with that platform. 

At least he is being open about it though.  Not like other politicians, promoting scam and scare tactics to garner support for useless law and regulation, then reaping the profits from insider trading deals.

Now another abuse of power, and a possible violation of law. Trump tweeted about his wife's jewelry line and then the presidential account retweeted that message. Trump is using the officer of the presidency for personal gain and this is certainly an ethical concern. Trump may be good for us on certain issues but he doesn't seem concerned about abuse of power.

I heard it was against the law for the president to use his office to promote a product during a radio interview however I am trying to find which law specifically.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-nordstrom-ivanka-20170208-story.html

You think Obama "wrote" those books out of the goodness of his heart without huge cash advances and payments? At one point the  Hawaii State Library System had over 600 copies of those books, all paid for by you and me. There weren't that many books TOTAL in the entire system by conservative/libertarian authors. I resent paying for that shit. Most of the ones sold at the Hilo Library book sales had been checked out fewer than five (5) times. And if you think that he and his wife haven't raked in tons of money and "favors", and will continue to do so due to his holding political office, then you are living in a dream world. Now, wanna talk about the Clintons? 

You think Obama "wrote" those books out of the goodness of his heart without huge cash advances and payments? At one point the  Hawaii State Library System had over 600 copies of those books, all paid for by you and me. There weren't that many books TOTAL in the entire system by conservative/libertarian authors. I resent paying for that shit. Most of the ones sold at the Hilo Library book sales had been checked out fewer than five (5) times. And if you think that he and his wife haven't raked in tons of money and "favors", and will continue to do so due to his holding political office, then you are living in a dream world. Now, wanna talk about the Clintons? 

Is that like Michelle Obama's friend who helped manage an IT firm in Canada .... the same company which created the debacle of a website for Obamacare for over half a billion bucks?  That's work and income Americans could have used during the recession.

Oh, wait.  That's different.  Trump isn't making his friends wealthy by paying them with millions in tax payer funds.

You think Obama "wrote" those books out of the goodness of his heart without huge cash advances and payments? At one point the  Hawaii State Library System had over 600 copies of those books, all paid for by you and me. There weren't that many books TOTAL in the entire system by conservative/libertarian authors. I resent paying for that shit. Most of the ones sold at the Hilo Library book sales had been checked out fewer than five (5) times. And if you think that he and his wife haven't raked in tons of money and "favors", and will continue to do so due to his holding political office, then you are living in a dream world. Now, wanna talk about the Clintons? 

Those are all valid questions but that does not detract from what Trump is doing. I can complain about Obama all day but that would just be preaching to the choir. Right now is Trump is the face of republicans and he is giving us a worse name by the day despite some of the good he has managed to do. Trump is failing to drain the swap, Trump seems to be the swamp.