OlDawg

[Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

Nate must have had a good time yesterday. He showed clips again this morning. Fox 26 Houston already has The Border Battle (La Porte vs. Deer Park) as the first Friday Football Frenzy of the season. They’ll be at La Porte all morning at least. This rivalry will test the attendance limits allowable right off the bat. In years past, they’ve had the bands/drill teams sit in chairs on the track areas where they could sell the extra seats, and still had people standing around the fences looking in. 😂

…and soooo many people cared, it was only in the school newspaper.

Please post when you find out. I don’t know if the Fire Marshall has an allowable limit for SRO on the concourse or anything, and don’t know the VIP & Suite capacities. Just heard them say the actual stadium seats are for 8,000.

Apparently, this new process doesn’t require watering? I assume this is the product (Brockfill) they used. [Hidden Content] New to me…

Yeah. I was reading up on the materials a little bit earlier today. Sounds like that’s actually part of the reason they can stay so much cooler and forgiving and still have better traction. Water absorption. Said they don’t mold, etc. Some kind of synthetic treatment process.

Wood chip field. Top of the line. Read where it’s supposed to be a lot better on the joints, etc. & a heck of a lot cooler than rubber. He was real proud of that today on TV. Said they put it on all the fields (practice fields, etc). Texas High School Athletic Director Assn. was here earlier today for a meeting. Sure they got a good tour. Be interested if any asked about playing a possible PO game here already.

[Hidden Content]

Y’all can just ask your defectors. They’re the smart ones anyway. 😁😜

Your word is: S a n c t i m o n i o u s Would you like to hear it in a sentence?

Dr. Jackson said they were getting permits & permissions to have sanctioned tailgates with food trucks, etc. before every home game this upcoming season. LP has 7 home games this year. The local restaurants are all looking at how to set up food tents, etc. Said they want to make Game Days an all-day event for the community. Still some finishing needed inside Press Box & Development Center. But, there’s a team store, 2 large suites rentable by the public, and a large VIP room all in the 4 level Press Box. Seating in the stadium is 8,000. Don’t know how many the suites & VIP room hold. Some seating was lost to accommodate handicap seating, & expanded Press Box/Suites/Store. Still enough though for most events I think.

Fox 26 Houston is touring the stadium right now with Nate Griffin.

Obama ended the ‘dry foot’ policy as well while he was trying to play kissy face with communist Cuba. Truth be told, he probably ended the policy because Cubans are generally conservative voters. They don’t fit into the race-baiting Democrat playbook. That’s another very big reason why the authors of the 14th didn’t want birthplace citizenship. They spelled out ‘no foreigners.’ They wanted immigrants to assimilate before becoming a citizen. Today, everyone wants to be a ‘something-American.’ No one says they’re just an American any more. No assimilation. People live in their own little silos with like kind—usually based on race. I blame the racial politics of the Democratic Party. They’ve been splitting people apart by race since they began as a Party. It’s only gotten worse over time.

Again, no one is stopping asylum seekers, or legal immigration in any form. In fact, it’s being encouraged. I’m not a D or R. Nor am I a big Trump fan. But, no to amnesty & the administration looks to be correct on their birthright citizenship claim to my layman’s reading. They are definitely correct on their abuse of national injunctions claim. I wouldn’t want my dead dog in CPS custody. Not in Harris County at least.

Not just Party specific. A number to consider that some don’t like to talk about: 59% of families/households headed by illegal immigrants use at least 1 major form of public assistance per 2024 CIS data which equates to over $42 Billion/year. According to the data, legalization only increases the issue because of the low education level. In contrast, 39% of legal/citizen households use public assistance. Wait! I thought public assistance wasn’t being provided to illegal immigrants. WRONG! The child being a citizen receives SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, & housing assistance. Many other programs have no limits on who can receive. Thus, it goes to the family unit. Conclusion Illegal immigrants are a significant net fiscal drain -- paying less in taxes than they use in public services. The primary reason they create more in costs than they pay in taxes is their relative low levels of education. Based on prior research, 69 percent of adult illegal immigrants have no education beyond high school, compared to 35 percent of the U.S.-born. As a result, they tend to earn modest wages and make modest tax contributions even when income and payroll taxes are taken out of their pay. This fact, coupled with the relatively heavy demands they make on public coffers -- especially for education, health care, and means-tested programs -- is the reason they are a net fiscal drain. We estimate that 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use one or more major welfare programs, costing roughly $42 billion a year. At the local level, the largest single cost is for public education. We estimate the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, most of whom are U.S.-born, totals $69 billion per year. While illegal immigrants often receive other services for their U.S.-born children, even when we estimate the net fiscal impact of just the illegal immigrants themselves, excluding their U.S.-born children, we still find they create a lifetime net fiscal drain of $68,000 on average (taxes paid minus benefits received). Even though illegal immigrants are net fiscal drains, they do pay a significant amount in taxes. We estimate illegal immigrants pay $25.9 billion a year to the federal government. Unfortunately, their tax contributions do not cover their consumption of public services. The net fiscal drain is not the result of illegal immigrants being unwilling to work. In fact, we find that illegal immigrant households are significantly more likely to have at least one worker than households headed by the U.S.-born, and there is little evidence that immigrants come specifically to get welfare. Legal immigrants and U.S.-born Americans who have relatively few years of school are also a net fiscal drain on average because they too tend to earn modest wages, make modest tax contributions, and use social services extensively. None of this should be seen as a moral failing on the part of low-income people. Nonetheless, it is the reason why communities across the country worry so much about losing their middle-class tax base, as it is primarily middle- and upper-income people who keep public coffers full. The fiscal situation today is very different from the situation more than 100 years ago during the last great wave of immigrants, when federal, state and local government was a much smaller share of GDP. Also, at that time industrial jobs for the less educated were plentiful and paid, by the standards of the day, relatively high wages. But none this is the case today. We need an immigration policy that reflects current realities, and we need to rigorously enforce it. Otherwise, the fiscal costs will be significant, as many communities across the country are currently finding out. [Hidden Content]

Had to make very small to meet file size limit. Hopefully, it's still readable.

Angleton has historically had a pretty good softball team. This year, they're better than usual. Should be a good series.

SCOTUS could also rule that birthright citizenship isn't guaranteed in the Constitution, agree with the original interpretation of the 14th, and end both questions with one ruling. Then, they'd have to specify that even illegal immigrants are granted certain rights of habeas corpus, and issue some type of ruling on minimal standards as it relates to current immigration law. No Amendments necessary, and no major changes to current law. While unpopular with the Left, it would be the cleanest way out for the Court and the country. I'm gonna' sit back with my popcorn and watch the show.

Not only that, but undocumented/illegal immigrants are not eligible for service in the U.S. military as they are not ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. So, how can their children be…? In case of war, draft the kids against the parent’s country? Riddle me that Batman liberals. 😁 (On a side note, I’d be curious how many illegal immigrants actually sign up for Selective Service as the law requires. If they don’t, they aren’t eligible to stay in country. It’s grounds for immediate removal. However, why they have to sign up when they can’t serve is a mystery to me. Another tracking mechanism I presume.)

Upon reading the amicus briefs for the case ‘Trump vs. CASA’, and knowing that 5 of the Justices have expressed concerns about the overreach of national injunctions from District Court judges, I now believe the Administration will win on the merits of removing the injunctions. How it will be worded for equal treatment will be interesting. I also believe the second issue—automatic birthright citizenship (so to speak)—is in serious jeopardy based on SCOTUS own precedent, historical references, and numerous case laws. The issue would then be up to the Legislature to craft a law that dealt with children who have already been given citizenship prior to a ruling. For any other geeks interested in this sort of stuff, the entire briefs SCOTUS is reviewing before Thursday are in the below link. Really fascinating if you’re interested in the real history and some civics of our government. The link will also be the one that provides live feeds during the hearing. SCOTUS doesn’t allow televised hearings. So, you’ll see written feeds of questions/answers/descriptions of emotions/etc. You won’t have to rely on biased news coverage either way. [Hidden Content]

Only partially true. You conveniently left out the key part like many. He is a citizen because HE was born here, and his PARENTS were legally subject here, resided permanently here, and were presumed loyal to the U.S. HE was underage. So, his status was carried from his parent/parents.

How they craft the—probably—very narrow ruling either way is going to be fascinating. Agree that tradition is an easy way out. But, it only continues a problem they know has torn this country apart numerous times. I don’t know how/if that will figure into their thinking. They’ve surprised me with some rulings lately.

So the Bill of Rights isn’t important, and can change anytime because the Founders are dead? Pretty lame argument. The Constitution doesn’t change, and has never changed. Only the interpretations & additions. But, since you say it changes with the times, then you’d have no objections to changing back to original intent of the Amendment authors.

Pretty good summary in general. There are other scenarios that involve military service as well. My family would be a great quiz for citizenship questions. My DIL—as mentioned—is naturalized, and one of my grandchildren was born in Japan. Can my DIL and/or grandchild have dual citizenship? (I obviously know the answer. But, it’s an interesting situation for folks to think about that haven’t ever pondered.) The answer is ‘yes.’ My DIL can have dual citizenship because Costa Rica allows & the U.S. doesn’t make you renounce. My grandson can’t be Japanese and American. Partly because he was born in the Naval hospital in Japan (technically U.S. soil), and also because Japan provides citizenship via parental ancestry instead of location. The U.S. is one of only 35 countries in the world (out of 195) that still grants almost universal birthright citizenship based on geographical location. And, as some believe with a pretty strong argument IMHO, that is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. If—as some believe, and has been practiced since a very liberal interpretation decades ago—everyone born in the U.S. geographically was automatically a citizen, there would never have been a need for a separate, later Act to include Native Americans as citizens. This is a very strong argument for original intent. I’m not sure the case coming before SCOTUS this week is as cut & dried as some would believe. It will be very interesting to watch, and could have a profound impact on how well we can enforce our borders. I would think SCOTUS will have this in the back of their mind. Of course, POTUS hasn’t enamored himself with the Judicial Branch lately with his mouth and some of his actions, and people are people, so you never know.

The U.S. already has a limited birthright citizenship scenario—even though many claim it’s much more open than the original authors & Congressional approval intended. The question up for debate—which has never actually been adjudicated—is whether a child born to someone in the U.S. temporarily & illegally should automatically become a citizen. No one is attempting to end birthright citizenship altogether.