HotBaozi

AG Barr lays out an excellent press conference on how China is pushing the US into an all-out war. After having worked in China for six years I can corroborate every single word our Attorney General utters. This doesn't make for good discussion with our Chinese partners, but it should neither be ignored nor should it be censored. https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/16/ag-barr-slams-hollywood-big-tech-for-kowtowing-to-the-chinese-communist-party/#.XxCTl6hG-n8.twitter

China knows, and is manipulating media https://twitter.com/LouDobbs/status/1258154698747588609?s=19

You posted the political topic as if your opinion was the absolute truth. The truth has always been clear, but because the 14th amendment has been so heavily politicized, it will be played out in the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the president can, and will retroactively if necessary, block ALL those who think they can enter the US illegally with the intention of having a baby and calling it an American citizen. That has never been a part of America. Not now, and won't be EVER.

The 14th amendment was written in the 1860s for victims of slavery, not for foreigners. In the end, it must be argued in the Supreme Court, but most legal scholars agree that birthright citizenship does not apply to foreigners who entered the US and gave birth. Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? Chuck DeVoreContributorPolicyTexas Public Policy Foundation VP and former California legislator The U.S. Constitution In an interview with Axios on HBO, President Donald Trump discussed his plans to discontinue the practice of automatically granting U.S. citizenship to all babies born on U.S. soil. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” the President said. “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress,” he elaborated, “But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.” The President’s concerns over birthright citizenship, from birth tourism to the children of illegal immigrants, is part of a larger policy discussion that ought to be had. Does America benefit from the current practice of birthright citizenship? If the practice is curtailed or ended, do we risk the additional marginalization of immigrants and their children as some assert has been the case in Europe? Beyond the proposed policy’s merits or shortcomings, there is a more fundamental Constitutional question: can limiting birthright citizenship even be done, short of amending the Constitution? Critics say the President can’t touch birthright citizenship. As the news broke, Bill Kristol, editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard, panned the President’s idea in a tweet: th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause dates to 1868, not 1776, and that the clause can be (and has been) clarified by statute, something Section 5 of the amendment specifically makes an allowance for. Wong Kim Ark, upholding birthright citizenship, seems to have been correctly decided. It’s not crazy to ask Congress to test this by legislation. But claiming a constitutionally-based policy that’s existed for our nation’s entire history can be changed by executive order is nuts." Harvard constitutional law Professor Laurence Tribe added his thoughts in a tweet:However, Senator Lindsey Graham weighed in with the President: If the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship could be wiped out with the stroke of Trump’s pen, the whole U.S. Constitution could be erased that way. There’s no limit to that dictatorial claim over all our rights."As a former lawmaker, I’m more interested in the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. What did they say about it when they introduced it in Congress? Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship… In addition, I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President (Trump)." First of all, it is important to view the 14th Amendment in context. It was forwarded for ratification after the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery at the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. But, recently freed slaves were not necessarily citizens as their citizenship status was abridged by the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott ruling in 1857. The 14th Amendment was therefore needed to elevate former slaves to the status of full-fledged U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…"Clearly, the clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something. The Constitution’s words cannot be accepted or ignored to suit mere political desires. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." The case of Wong Kim Ark, cited by Bill Kristol, is often used by defenders of a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. This Supreme Court case was decided 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification by the states. In it, the majority held that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawful, permanent residents who were “domiciled” in the U.S. at the time of his birth in San Francisco in 1873. Wong Kim Ark subsequently exited the U.S. and was denied re-entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, signed into law in 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. He sued, arguing that, as a U.S. citizen, the Chinese Exclusion Act didn’t apply to him. The Court found that his parents, while Chinese citizens owing allegiance to the Emperor of China, were in fact permanent residents of the U.S.—they weren’t in the nation illegally and they weren’t here on a temporary basis. Thus, Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen. Complicating matters is the fact that at the time of the 14th Amendment, most Native Americans born on reservations within the borders of the U.S. were not granted citizenship as they owed allegiance to their tribe. Individual tribal members could apply for citizenship or be considered as citizens if they were taxed and lived off a reservation. It wasn’t until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, signed into law by President Coolidge, that the entire Native population became citizens—some 92% were not at the time. The fact that a statute was needed to confer citizenship on a vast class of people born in U.S. territory 26 years after the Wong Kim Ark decision appears to throw some doubt on the argument that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to all born on U.S. soil. These facts, combined with the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue of whether those born in the U.S. to parents not here permanently or legally, makes for an opening for President Trump’s proposed executive order on the matter as well as for statutory clarification per Sen. Graham’s tweet. Regarding an executive order, might there be guidance given to the executive branch regarding, for example, the citizenship status of children born to so-called “birth tourists?” That is, mothers, late in their term, who fly into the U.S. specifically to give birth to U.S. citizens, conferring upon the children the ability to avoid mandatory military conscription in nations such as South Korea, China, and Turkey, while giving their parents an advantage in future immigration via so-called “chain migration.” Similarly, a statute passed by Congress and signed by a president could seek to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In either case, litigation is almost certain to ensue and the U.S. Supreme Court would get an opportunity to directly rule on what exactly “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Both an executive order from President Trump and a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President, would be quickly brought before the federal court system, once again showing that our constitutional republic was built to withstand the passions of the moment. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gradsoflife/2018/11/01/futureproofing-why-this-company-sources-talent-locally-and-why-you-should-too/#5b57742a4cb2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zQVxtIbcA

You are like me - we are both stupidly trying to follow our country's immigration law and we are trying to abide by the nations laws and do things legally. You would think we would learn by now... Now had we both brought our relatives into the country illegally, the government would have benefits people tripping over themselves to provide taxpayer benefits without the need for any of those 4 hour 23 minute wait time calls. We pay the fees that fund the immigration offices, we should be able to get answers without waiting ridiculous amounts of time. I'm glad to see troops on the border. That's the way it used to be years ago and we didn't have so many issues. It's gotten so much worse lately than ever before. It truly boggles the mind that one group of folks dots all the 'i, s', crosses all the 't, s', pays all the fees, attends every appointment, provides honest answers, obeys laws, provides legal birth certificates, background checks, immunizations, medical checks, all because they not only love their family, but love America and respect the rule-of-law. The people who believe in doing things the right way have a moral compass. So, where are all the news stories covering families who do everything the legal way, not only with regard to immigration, but their entire lives show honesty and respect toward their country, government, and law enforcement?

Haha. Yeah. Just like that.

Thanks guys. I just scheduled an infopass appointment. There were no appointments available at the Orlando office, so had to go through Tampa. I've called the USCIS several times, and three of those times calls were escalated to a tier 2 officer where they schedule a call back. If you call the USCIS promptly at 8:00 AM, you'll get quickly connected with the tier 1 agent. Then, after they take information, and escalate the wait time for a call back is about one-hour. But, lately when the call back happens, you're connected to a computer and put on hold for the next available officer. After about two minutes, the call disconnects. When I called back, the wait time was 263 minutes, which translates in English to 4-hours 23 minutes. There is a solution to this to free up resources at all immigration offices. It involves using family friendly trebouchets on the US border to deport those who've entered the country illegally.

We filed the I-751 to remove conditions in December 2017, received confirmation, and then moved in March 2018. We immediately reported the address change to the USCIS using the online form and received confirmation. About two weeks later, we received a letter at our new address from the USCIS with the following quote: "After careful review of your request, it has been determined that your issues will be best addressed by the USCIS office having jurisdiction over your case. Therefore, we have taken the liberty of forwarding your service request to the California Service Center. If you require additional assistance, forms and/or filing instructions, we invite you to visit our website at uscis.gov or, if you do not have internet access, contact customer service at 1-800-375-5283. During the above referenced call, you or your representative request that we update your address. Please note that there are instances when we are not able to update an address. We will notify you if we were unable to update your address. If we are able to update your address, we will do so as soon as possible" I called the USCIS several times attempting to get this cleared up as there were letters mailed to our old address while the USCIS sent this ridiculous letter. Finally, on April 13, I was able to speak to a USCIS officer who changed our address for us. He said he had no explanation as to why our address was not changed, and said it would have been easy for any office to change it, and further stated that the Texas Service Center that sent us the above letter should have changed it. Now, as of this morning, I contacted the USCIS again attempting to confirm our address change again and also request that all letters and communications sent to us be resent to our new address. Further, the new case status shows our case was transferred again to the service center at Arlington, VA. Now awaiting a call back from a USCIS officer this morning. Here is the USCIS status as of this morning. Note that our case was transferred on April 10, 2018, and the letter was most likely sent to our old address, and all USCIS communications cannot be forwarded. Case Was Transferred And A New Office Has JurisdictionOn April 10, 2018, we transferred your Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, Receipt Number xxxxxxxxxxx, to another USCIS office. That office now has jurisdiction over your case. We sent you a notice that explains why we moved your case. Please follow the instructions in the notice. If you do not receive your notice by May 10, 2018, please go to www.uscis.gov/e-request to request a copy of the notice. If you move, go to www.uscis.gov/addresschange to give us your new mailing address. What a mess. Makes no sense!

US secular phones are way overpriced. Anyone considering getting a new device should buy it unlocked and outright if they can; like Dan suggested. I recently bought a Huawei phone after my HTC One volume switch stopped working. It was annoying. Having used both Android and iPhone devices, I prefer Android hands down. New devices are way overpriced, with many costing in excess of $600, and the more price gouging over $1000. That's nuts in my opinion. After my wife bought the Huawei Mate 9, I was very impressed with it, so I bought one too. I got mine just before Christmas from Best Buy for $399. They've now gone up to $499. Tough to beat for what you're getting. I once heard someone say, if you want the American government to spy on you, they buy an American device. If you want the Chinese to spy on you, buy a Chinese device. I feel safer with the Chinese spying on me than struck stroke, page, and comey. Update: Price decreased on clearance to $449 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/huawei-mate-9-4g-lte-with-64gb-memory-cell-phone-unlocked-space-gray/5709704.p?skuId=5709704

If you earned an income in China, then you also need to complete and file Form 2555-EZ, Foreign Earned Income Exclusion for each year you earned. Then, attach to form 1040-EZ. You can estimate your earnings.

I lived and worked in China for six years, and read a lot of bad advice that filing taxes in the US was not necessary unless income was over like $125,000 a year or some such nonsense. Not true. So, upon returning to the US, I made my way to an HR Block office familiar with filing back taxes for someone who lived and worked overseas. It was quite a pile of paperwork, and when all was done mailed as a package to the IRS. I suppose I paid a couple hundred bucks for the service, which was well worth it to ensure the paperwork was filed correctly. Now, my SSN account shows zero income for all those years worked in China.

I read in another thread where Daniel Noblett suggested making an Infopass appointment to get another extension and also a i-551 stamp for your wife's passport.

Sneaking in a little hate trump piece into the site that banned dozens for posting political stuff never hurt anyone did it?

Swing http://i64.tinypic.com/4twq5y.jpg

Starting out http://i63.tinypic.com/1rt079.jpg Beer bottle planter http://i68.tinypic.com/1zgwda0.jpg Planting lettuce http://i66.tinypic.com/2bs3zo.jpg Lettuce grows http://i66.tinypic.com/6dux6q.jpg