Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,205 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

Troll2016

 

Blog Traffic: 3602

Posts: 52

My Comments: 322

User Comments: 566

Photos: 11

Friends: 10

Following: 1

Followers: 4

Points: 1314

Last Online: 11 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

kanthony39us
 

First Amendment

Added: Sunday, January 10th 2021 at 6:37pm by Troll2016
 
 
 

The First Amendment does not actually promise you the right to say whatever you want. It simply states the government can take no action that interferes with those rights.

User Comments

In other businesses and/or individuals can limit what they are willing to listen to without slapping the person up side the head, figuratively or otherwise.

People don't seem to realize that freedom of speech doesn't mean there are no consequences whatsoever.

Exactly correct, I am sort of proud of Amazon and Google for putting a stop to the easy access for spewing continued insurrection causing propangda.

We have rights and we also have responsibilities. Some people don't seem to relate to the latter.

@ C14: I agree wholeheartedly.   We go on and on about our rights, but rarely a peep about the civic responsibilities that we are constitutionally bound by.  My husband knows them because he had to recite and accept those responsibilities to earn his right to American citizenship, which he recieved in 2009.   (He immigrated here in 2003, took him a couple of years to get a green card (permanent residency) and a couple of more years to earn his full citizenship.  He's a dual citizen, now holding passports to both the UK and America.

@Troll:  You are correct.  The government can't stop you from speaking your mind, but they can make you damned sorry you did so.

I know this from personal experience.

Call me Angel, Angela. C14 sounds like a gulag. HaHa. Or a virus. Yes, I think our rights are about our duty to ourselves and our civic responsibilities are about our duties to each other. I think it would be impossible to have one without the other. Goodness, it took your man six years to go through the process! OK, we can't just let any old person in to the country, we need to be sure, but that seems like one hell of a long time. It must have stressed both of you out. I was lucky, I didn't have to do that to live and work here as my father is a Bostonian. So I qualified at birth even though I was born in Germany. The German "retention permit" allows me to stay German even though I've lived in the US for a couple of decades now.

So your man is British? So is mine. Glad you guys sorted the immigration thing in the end.

It was a huge pain in the arse, and terribly expensive, too.  We were ignorant of the requirements, so there are no excuses to be made on our part.

He arrived on a standard 90 day visitor's passport, sans visa, because we were meeting face to face for the first time and didn't know if we'd continue our relationship after getting to know each other more personally.

We were still under the 'Visa Waiver' program with friendly nations, so he never applied for, nor did he require, a visa to enter.  He DID require a visa to remain longer than 90 days, when (in our ignorance) we both thought all we had to do was get married and the rest would be easy.

It would have been if he'd had a visa to amend, to extend, to add a fiancee' endorsement to it.  But he only had his passport.  We were told he'd have to leave the country and apply for a visa elsewhere, wait for it to be approved, a process which can take many months or even years, and then return.  

We did not want to go through all that for obvious reasons so our first big expense was in hiring an immigration attorney, one who used to work for INS, before it became part of Homeland Security.

Long story shortened for brevity, she kept him from getting in trouble for overstaying his 90 day Visa Waiver limit, and for the next couple of years he had to apply for work permits every 6 months (always with a fee) and make a personal appearance at the nearest INS service office, which at that time was a 200 mile round trip from Richmond, VA to Norfolk, just so they could check his fingerprints again, take an updated photo, and interview us in regards to the "bonafides" of our marriage.

We lived under a microscope the entire time, having to produce leases, joint bank accounts, debt taken on as a married couple, photos of us together and with other friends and family members, taken at different locations the previous six months, cards and letters addressed to both of us, car insurance listing both of us, you name it, they wanted to see it, and us, every 6 months.

I am surprised they didn't insist on installing a webcam in our bedroom to prove the marriage had been consumated!

But yeah, we went through this for a number of years and he was finally granted the magic green card, which indicates legal permanent residency.

But even that requires renewal every ten years, at great expense, and would never provide him the protections full citizenship would, so we continued through the process.  I think his waiting period after getting a green card was either 2 or 3 years before he could even APPLY for citizenship, then he had to schedule (and study) for his testing, and then we had to wait for the next swearing in ceremony scheduled in our area for him to take his oaths.

He was not required to, nor did he, ever renounce his British citizenship, so he remains a dual citizen even today, but has no intention of ever returning to England other than for a vacation...if we ever win the freakin' lottery.

It's tough to do it legal.  Takes too long and costs far too much.

I'm all FOR immigration reform, the process should be streamlined and cheap, maybe even free (taxpayer funded) for the potential immigrant, because there are high quality folks out there that would make great additions to our nation...if they could only afford to do so.

First, however, we gotta stop the hoardes already at the gates, and the trafficking which leaves us caring for young children who often arrive not with their parents, but with criminals who hold them hostage for ransom to be paid by relatives already in country, or set 'em out to prostitute...or worse.

Good gracious! They really put you guys through the mill. I cannot understand why your husband should have to drive to Richmond and back when his finger prints could have been taken officially nearer home and then electronically transferred. What an archaic way of doing things. And a pain in the ass too. And to have to apply every ten years seems very unfair as well. The rest I can kind of understand, but it still seems like it should be streamlined, like you say. Maybe the tax payer and the immigrants could meet in the middle and America fund half of the immigration costs. That'd be some help to potentially valuable new citizens whilst making the regular tax payer feel like it wasn't all on them. Its terrible what's happened regarding Mexico and the trafficking. I believe that south central USA is one of the worst hot spots for trafficking in the world. Way ahead of Africa and Eastern Europe. Terrible.

Ammendment. Not the whole of Africa. Any African region. Whether its sex slavery, domestic servitude, forced labor or the sale of children, that part of the US seems to be involved in all. I believe that China and India are the worst areas on the planet though. I suppose their huge populations and crappy governments make that inevitable. But the US is a modern nation which edorses rights and freedoms as we have discussed. We should be doing a lot better than we are I feel.

Hello, Troll!

The point of the 1st Amendment is that the Founders sought to protect means of informing the electorate against things which may imperil Constitutional Liberties; each of these: Press freedom, the establishment clause – regarding religion – free-speech, right to peacefully assemble and petitioning Government for redressing grievances were understood as 5 checks upon the possibility of a despotic Government emerging… The Founder’s did not anticipate that society would be seduced via the University and a homogenization views which would render meaningless the Founding principles and those Founding documents which within which they are delineated…

Although you are correct that utterances have consequences, and Government is – for the most part – avoid interfering is public dialogues, what Government/bureaucratic establishment – more and more of late - has done, is protect almost any speech whatsoever of the social-political Left, while tacitly sanctioning almost everything uttered/written by those said to be of social-political Right (The real division is social-political Left = ideologues, and those arguing from the objective principles of reality are more-or-less realists…) . Government has thrown in with the ideologues and ideology is the ground of autocratic despotism… Despots do not dialogue, and they will not countenance those that choose to do so…

Cordially, tjd

Good lord, tj, you need an editor.   I am available.  Cheap, too.

HaHa. That's a really sweet thing for you to offer TJ, Imperatrix!

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.