http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/21refugees.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Up until now, Mexican Immigrants have immediantly fled to the United States to seek refuge from poverty in Mexico. However as of September 20th, at least 200 people had turned up, across the border from Detroit. With an expected 7,000 more to arrive in the coming weeks. Last year there was a percentage of 28% of 47% of immigration came from Mexico. What is Canada to do about this?
Officials in Windsor had a brief meeting on Thursday to discuss the matter at hand. Only to find out that their Salvation Army, workers were being overrun. With a shelter filled with 30 single men, and four motels haivng been rented for the immigrants. With meals being run to them via taxi cab. The Salvation Army was overwhelmed by the huge numbers when the immigrants arrived at a community center in Windsor, to apply for Social Services.
This trend recently began its uprising when the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, posted on its website, information required for Canadian Refugee Status Application. The website also posted that it would have $400 for adults and $100 for children and assured them that there would be jobs and shelter.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, which ahs now set off numerous stories, which is currently causing widespread fear and panic for the immigrants in Canada's society. This happens when an employer warns its hirer's to not hire immigrants. Then when an immigrant applies, they are caught.
However it has been recently discovered that the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training website has been charging $400 per person to seek Asylum in Canada. On their site the charge is descirbed as a "fee", when in reality it is actually more of a donation. And although Mexicans who have lived in the United States are permitted to seek asylum in Canada, they will be deported to Mexico if they are turned down.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A bid farewell to arms
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401977_2.html?nav=hcmodule&sub=AR
Ask yourself, are shotguns and rifles, considered more dangerous than a handgun? Shotguns have extreme firepower capability, the mere sight of the can scare the hell out of anyone. And rifles, most rifles can pick someone off from the distance of a football field, or further. But a handgun dangerous? Something so small, in comparison to a shotgun, seems kinda wimpy.
The District of Columbia has a entirely different view. Their view on handguns, is that they are the leading cause of firearm related deaths in America. Why? Because big things come in small packages. The very fact that a handgun can be craft fully concealed scares the hell out of everyday citizens. And it is because of this that the District of Columbia has asked the Supreme Court, to uphold their ban on handguns.
However shotguns, and rifles will still be allowed. Unless you are a either an active police officer, or a retired police officer, in which case it is OK to own a handgun. This all was going to happen until 3 judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals voted on this law. And 2 to 1, it was decided to do away with he Districts law, banning handguns. And it struck down a law requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks.
After all the Second Amendment states ""Arms" and handguns are considered arms, same as shotguns, and rifles. Part of the petition said "States remain free to regulate arms within their boundaries so long as they do not thereby deprive the United States of the ability to obtain the assistance of an armed citizenry in time of need."
This raises the question. If the Second Amendment forbids the Court from banning handguns, because they are considered as arms. This very question grabs the Districts lawyers by the balls. But they say that still being able to own shotguns, and rifles will "satisfy" the desire of the law's challengers for a means of self-protection.
Ask yourself, are shotguns and rifles, considered more dangerous than a handgun? Shotguns have extreme firepower capability, the mere sight of the can scare the hell out of anyone. And rifles, most rifles can pick someone off from the distance of a football field, or further. But a handgun dangerous? Something so small, in comparison to a shotgun, seems kinda wimpy.
The District of Columbia has a entirely different view. Their view on handguns, is that they are the leading cause of firearm related deaths in America. Why? Because big things come in small packages. The very fact that a handgun can be craft fully concealed scares the hell out of everyday citizens. And it is because of this that the District of Columbia has asked the Supreme Court, to uphold their ban on handguns.
However shotguns, and rifles will still be allowed. Unless you are a either an active police officer, or a retired police officer, in which case it is OK to own a handgun. This all was going to happen until 3 judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals voted on this law. And 2 to 1, it was decided to do away with he Districts law, banning handguns. And it struck down a law requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks.
After all the Second Amendment states ""Arms" and handguns are considered arms, same as shotguns, and rifles. Part of the petition said "States remain free to regulate arms within their boundaries so long as they do not thereby deprive the United States of the ability to obtain the assistance of an armed citizenry in time of need."
This raises the question. If the Second Amendment forbids the Court from banning handguns, because they are considered as arms. This very question grabs the Districts lawyers by the balls. But they say that still being able to own shotguns, and rifles will "satisfy" the desire of the law's challengers for a means of self-protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)