Texas New Hire Reporting Form 2007: Fill & Download for Free

Here is how we know it will take years:Today, after twelve years many of the land cases for the fencing planned under the George W Bush 2006 Secure Fence Act are still not settled. It was passed by Congress with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Before that only fourteen miles of fencing had been erected along the border of San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico in the 1990s. It was passed as part of the false hysteria whipped up by Bush after the 2001 terrorism.They had to do an 2007 amendment to it because “different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense.""nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."About 700 miles (1,130 kilometers) of fencing were eventually installed. It cost approximately $2.3 billion. The hardest area is Texas. The land ownership there is complex. The Constitution does not allow taking property without fair compensation. Only 100 miles have been finished there. Approximately 60 to 70 cases are still pending from a decade ago!After the act was passed the Feds launched the most aggressive seizure of private land by the federal government in decades. In less than a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed more than 360 eminent domain lawsuits against property owners, involving thousands of acres of land in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners. The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties. The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general wrote “Gaining access rights and acquiring nonfederal property has delayed the completion of fence construction and may increase the cost beyond available funding. It described the act of taking over property as “a costly, time-consuming process.”Here is an article from the Texas Tribune.The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fenceFor the wall, TONS of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona land owners are prepared to fight. You’re talking about thousands and thousands of eminent domain proceedings that would have to run through federal district courts in Texas for the most part, but also places such as Arizona and New Mexico. Most people are not willing to voluntarily hand over their land, even with a fair market price, forcing the government to go to court to obtain it.“You could give me a trillion dollars and I wouldn’t take it,” said Cavazos, whose land sits along the Rio Grande, the river separating the U.S. and Mexico in Texas. “It’s not about money.”The government sued the local Roman Catholic diocese late last year to gain access for its surveyors at the site of La Lomita chapel, which opened in 1865. The Church has hired Georgetown lawyers.U.S. farmers and businessmen along the Texas border in the Rio Grande valley opposed it since it blocks their access to the river water and also augments the severity of floods.The Trump idea will cost a great deal of time and money. And rip land awa form people who have had it for 150 years or more. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal report in February put the cost at $21.6 billion, but that may be a major underestimate.https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trumps-border-wall-would-need-private-property-but-texas-landowners-plan-to-dig-in-for-lengthy-legal-fight/2019/01/10/d7e4cba8-1443-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.a6e74c1fd57dhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/texas-landowners-dig-in-to-fight-trumps-border-wall/2019/01/09/6e6996fe-146b-11e9-ab79-30cd4f7926f2_story.html?utm_term=.3e2d7e6a5e7dhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trumps-border-wall-threatens-to-end-texas-families-250-years-of-ranching-on-rio-grande/2018/09/08/92e721d2-b12d-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.b96ab3dfb435https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trumps-border-wall-would-need-private-property-but-texas-landowners-plan-to-dig-in-for-lengthy-legal-fight/2019/01/10/d7e4cba8-1443-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.49a65dc6d770The Wall: The real costs of a barrier between the United States and Mexico

Marc Bodnick's answer has covered it almost entirely. I would just like to add some extra details.Gangs of New York (2002) : For playing Bill the Butcher, he flew a butcher from Peckham, South London to America to instruct him in carving up carcasses. He also hired circus performers to teach him to throw knives, and he came down with pneumonia during shooting because he refused to change his threadbare woollen coat for a warmer one on the grounds that as a poor 19th century New Yorker, he wouldn’t have owned a thick coat.Also while on set, he obsessively listened to foul language songs of rapper Eminem in a bid to keep up his "level of aggression". His preparation for the role was so intense that other actors were reportedly scared of him around the set.His excessive preparation & immersion in the skin of his character irked Liam Nesson when DDL insisted on being addressed by his character's name when they met at the gym of their hotel.There Will Be Blood (2007) : For playing Daniel Plainview, he refused to talk to his costars off the set & insisted on living in a tent in deserted Texas oilfield even after the shooting for the day was over.In his fight scene with Paul Dano in a bowing alley, he actually pounded Paul with bowling balls. Paul Dano, who starred opposite Day-Lewis in the turn-of-the-century drama, said: "They start flying and I realise he's getting into it. Then a ball bounces up and hits me in the leg, and I'm thinking: 'OK, those are heavy; this is getting serious - I'd better duck.'"Also there are rumours that one co-star quit the movie after branding DDL "crazy & intimidating".The Ballad of Jack & Rose (2005) : For playing the part of a reclusive hippie, he built his own shack on the beach of a remote Canadian island, where he would spend the night after shooting had finished, while his own family was staying at a nearby hotel.In the Name of the Father (1993) : To prepare for his part as the wrongly convicted alleged IRA bomber Gerry Conlon in the film about the Guildford Four, he spent three days subsisting on meagre prison rations and staying in a freezing cold cell. Those passing by on the set were instructed to abuse him and throw cold water on him.P.S. : Though this incident has got nothing to do with the context of the answer, it's so famous that I can't resist posting it.DDL used to do theater in his early career. While playing the role of Hamlet, he became so convinced that he was talking to his dead father that he ran from the stage, sobbing uncontrollably. He has never returned to theater since.

In my opinion, prostitution in the U.S. should be legal.*Let me first start by issuing the following disclaimer:I have never been with a prostitute. If legalized, I would not visit a prostitute. I gain nothing by writing this. I am not affiliated with any organization or group that advocates for prostitution.I understand that many women can be offended by this so I ask you to please proceed with an open mind before you kill me with comments below regarding the ills of human trafficking or the morality of it all. First, four background points:A short history of prostitution[1] in ancient Greece and the U.S.The Federal government has left the legality of prostitution to the individual states to decide if it should be legal or not within their individual borders.The state government of Nevada is the only state in the U.S. that has legal prostitution and has left the decision of legalization to each individual county (In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, it is illegal) rather than a state decision of where and where it is not legal.A review of any Nevada county law or ordinance regarding prostitution will show strict statutes that must be followed. It is a regulated industry. One such statute is that street prostitution is illegal and that prostitution must only take place in a controlled environment called a brothel and not in a residential neighborhood, and not near a school.All workers in a brothel must be registered with the county.All brothels must be licensed.All workers must get tested for STDs and HIV once a week.Legalization significantly reduces human trafficking and street walkers.Legalization significantly reduces underage prostitutionLegalization significantly reduces forced prostitution.Legalization may make it easier for police to find underage and human trafficking (#7–9 above). The legalized brothels are controlled and works to help get women off the street and in a safe environment. Many more streetwalkers will be off the street resulting in fewer ad’s for a “date.” Police may have an easier time and more success in finding human trafficking, underage, and forced prostitution.Police man power for sex crimes and task forces can be reduced due to fewer street walkers, pimps, and John’s to arrest, allowing the police to redirect more availability to more serious crimes .The courts will have fewer prostitution cases to process resulting in other cases being heard and resolved more quickly.Public defenders will have a lighter case load allowing them to spend more time on other, more serious defendants.Legalization significantly reduces men having to be concerned about arrest and having their lives and reputations destroyed.Men (customers) will be safer. No more driving to the “bad” part of town, risking getting robbed, assaulted, or ripped off by a worker.Studies that compare indoor prostitutes (as opposed to street walkers) with non-prostitutes find that they have similar levels of self-esteem, physical health, and mental health. Many indoor prostitutes even report a rise in self-esteem after they begin their indoor work (Weitzer, 2012).Kingley Davis, theorized that prostitution lowers the divorce rate. He reasoned that many married men are unhappy with their sex life with their wives. If they do not think this situation can improve, some men start an affair with another woman and may fall in love with that woman, threatening these men’s marriages. (Kingsley Davis was was an internationally recognized American sociologist identified by the American Philosophical Society as one of the most outstanding social scientists of the twentieth century.)Legalization significantly reduces the acts occurring in seedy motels and the activity that is seen around those neighborhoods.Legalization significantly reduces drug use. A brothel is a controlled environment where no such activity is tolerated.Legalization significantly reduces any guilt or embarrassment by either of the two parties involved.It creates a safe environment for the workers.All brothels are regulated and most follow strict code adherenceAll prostitutes must be tested for STD, HIV, etc once a week (Nevada has not recorded a single case of HIV in a brothel since legalizing Prostitution.)Condoms must be used. There is no option.The women can always choose to not participate with a customer if she does not want to do what the customer wants to do. The customer can choose another partner.All prices of all sex acts are clearly posted and/or menu’s are provided. No negotiations.Brothels provide a clean & safe environment for all parties involved.Creates a new source of tax revenue.“Let’s assume that 50 million acts of prostitution occur annually in the United States (it is closer to 70 million), and that each of these acts costs an average $30. Putting these numbers together, prostitutes receive $1.5 billion annually in income. If they paid about one-third of this amount (admittedly a rough estimate) in payroll taxes, the revenue of state and federal governments would increase by $500 million.” (resource)Removes “Red Light Districts” and moves everything into a controlled environment.Prostitution was legal in the U.S. up until 100 years ago (1920) when it became illegal due to the religious moral reasons. Are we still making laws based on religious reasons?Prostitution has long been illegal due to moral reasons. To that point consider this:Who is to say what is and is not moral in this day and age? Homosexuality, black/white relationships, and sodomy were all once illegal.Sodomy laws in the United States, were inherited from British criminal laws with roots in the Christian religion. Christian religion no longer dictates U.S. law and is a violation of separation of church and state.If we follow British rule of law (which is what U.S laws are based upon), prostitution is legal. Therefore, American law should follow, right? (I personally do not agree on this point.) There are certain restrictions however.In the case, Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the U.S. Supreme court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down Texas State law (and therefore 13 other states) that made Sodomy illegal between consenting adults. This is significant because Lawrence v Texas overruled a previous Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 that found a Georgia statute banning sodomy, was valid because the Constitution did not apply to constitutional protection of sexual privacy. By reversing the 1986 decision, the Court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.Legalizing Prostitution would give the workers a right to unionize and be entitled to certain protections.The spread of STD’s and HIV could be significantly reduced (condom use).Worker injury (whatever that might be) would be covered under OSHA.Workers could possible be entitled to benefits such as sick time, paid time off, and even vacation and retirement planning.Workers would receive health benefits.Strip Clubs are legal and the activity in these clubs comes very close to a brothel. Why is it permissible to watch a woman (of her own free will) remove all her clothing in public and dance naked for money but she cannot, of her own free will, have human contact of her own free will.Two (or more) consenting adults, agree to have sex with each other, and get paid to have sex with each other. That’s prostitution, right? No, there is a loophole. XXX rated movies. These actors get paid to have sex but because they are being filmed for commercial purposes and claim it as an art form, then that’s ok, They are not breaking the law. Hmmm…Roe v. Wade. This might be a stretch but Roe v Wade gives a woman the right to choose what happens to her body and focuses on reproductive rights. It mentions personal autonomy. Personal autonomy is a key provision here. Can such an argument be referenced for what a woman decides to do with her body, such as participating in prostitution? (For more on personal autonomy, see Part IV of this John Marshall Law Review article. See also this Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository article.)“Corruption would be rampant.” This is a baseless statement. Lets be realistic. There is corruption with every single job on the planet including, Police, Politicians, Priests (and other religions), Judges, teachers, social workers, Stock Market (money managers), etc. Are all priests, police, or teachers bad? Of course not. The majority of all workers and professionals are good, honest, hardworking people. Just because a woman is a prostitute does not make her a bad person. I cannot say why a woman would want or need to do this sort of work, but the reason is not for any of us to judgeA U.N. report found "very low" rates of sexually transmitted infections among the sex workers of New Zealand, a country whose total decriminalization of prostitution many advocates consider to be the gold standard in sex work policy. NZ - it's a great place to be a prostituteFormer US Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders thinks it makes no sense to ban prostitution simply because it objectifies women: “Why are we so upset about sex workers selling sexual acts to consenting adults?” she asks. “We say that they are selling their bodies, but how different is that from what athletes do? They’re selling their bodies. Models? They’re selling their bodies. Actors? They’re selling their bodies.”Recently, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeals judge asked, why it should be “illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away?” Other judges have said the 14th amendment and Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to Prostitution because that is not what those who wrote the 14th amendment nor the Supreme Court Justices had in mind. Really? How is that known? The ruling references Personal Autonomy.Prostitution can be a controlled and regulated industry. Without regulations, we get what we have today….street walkers, drug addicts, abused women etc. This profession is known as the worlds oldest profession. It’s not, nor will it ever, go away. It was completely legal in all the U.S. until only 1920.We can waste tax payer money by continuing sting operations, arresting offenders who will only turn around and go right back to the street after posting bond or, we can provide a safe and regulated place for all involved and redirect police resources to truly hurtful and dangerous crimes.I cannot imagine anyone who would rather drive to a seedy part of town, risk arrest, getting robbed, contracting an STD, and embarrassment by arrest, versus going to a place that does not hide the truth and provides safety for all parties.I’m not an attorney or an advocate, but in my eyes, the only reasons prostitution is illegal is because nobody is willing to write the rules and because of those who define morality. Bt who defines morality? Does your morality have to be my morality? It is not the same thing to all people. I guess that falls to the court system…the same court that once outlawed sodomy, sex between two males, and black/white sex.In my opinion, the decision to have sex between two consenting adults, whether it be for money, food, or Winnie the Pooh stickers, is and should be, between the adults involved. There needs to be, like all other legal matters, rules and restrictions put into place to protect everyone. And no need to reinvent the wheel. We can use New Zealand, Amsterdam, and Nevada as the blueprint for policy. All objections such as STD’s, HIV, corruption, exploitation, etc, are really just from people who object to the activity and have no desire to make it legal and they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but I don’t care for alcohol and there are some religions that forbid drinking it, but that does not mean we should outlaw alcohol due to moral and religious beliefs? We already tried that in the U.S. and it failed miserably, in part because all kinds of mobs and corruption materialized. Al Capone made his living from running illegal moonshine and secret “speakeasy’s.” Those speakeasy’s and running moonshine (all the illegal activity) vanished right after alcohol was legalized again.Human nature is such that if we want something bad enough, we will find a way to get it. That is why there is and has always been prostitution. We’ve legalized marijuana, alcohol, same sex marriage, abortions, segregation, sodomy, and so many other “once illegal” activities. The illegal fixation on prostitution pales in comparison to the benefits for all parties involved including the workers, the customers, the tax payers, the government, and the public at large.(Reed Saxon/AP)EDIT: The word. “Eliminates” used in my opinion are too definitive as Sean Patrick points out in his comment below. I agree. I am changing the word to “reduces.” Also, I added a TON more points to and links. My apologies to the first 18K readers who did not read this revised version that has more clarity.Edit #2:Human Trafficking has become a very hot topic lately which has created many non-profit organizations to help those who are involuntarily forced into being a “sex slave” with little hope of escape. I fully support & agree with such organizations to the point that modern day slavery of any type should not and can not be tolerated anywhere, in any country. While these organizations are doing a terrific service by building awareness of a problem that needs addressing, I do not agree with everything they advocate, specifically their attempt to keep prostitution illegal and that it is bad for everyone everywhere. There is research, commissioned by Human Trafficking groups, that show even legalized prostitution in Nevada is detrimental and is known to have forced labor and so I want to address that concern, that legalizing will not put an end to human trafficking and actually increases human trafficking (this is what some research reporting has concluded).First, everyone should always be wary of any research commissioned by groups that want to prove their point as valid. It almost goes without saying that these groups would bury the report if the research showed the opposite of what they theorize and want others to read.Second, brothels are regulated in Nevada and should be heavily regulated. Las Vegas does a pretty good job of regulating anyone working in a gaming environment by requiring every worker to obtain and carry a “Sheriff’s card” (also called a Work Card.)This card can only be obtained by a person who is sponsored by an employer who has agreed to hire them. You cannot obtain a card before being employed, only after being offered a job by an employer. This does not completely stop problems but certainly makes things more difficult for the illegal activity to occur. In fact, Las Vegas already requires that those working in brothels have such a card even though prostitution is illegal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is located.)As you can see from the following sample, the questions are specific and more detailed questions can be added including a private, in-person interview with a deputy or agent who can ask the worker specific questions such as “Are you being forced into this work?” “Do you need help with an addiction?” “Why have you chosen to do this work?” “Has anyone threatened your safety if you do not obtain this card or work in the profession?” The workers can be required to renew the cards annually with an interview.Here is a sample application for a Sheriff’s card.https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/SampleWorkCardApplication.pdfWith proper regulations, many concerns are addressed and for those who continue to participate in trafficking, pimping and smuggling of humans, the penalties should be made more severe and as severe as possible.————————————————————————-Footnotes and Further Reading that might apply to this opinion:Federal MaterialSearch U.S. Supreme Court DecisionsSearch U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals DecisionsSearch LII Preview/ Analyses of Supreme Court Cases1st Amendment to U.S. Constitution4th and 5th Amendments to U.S. Constitution14th Amendment to U.S. ConstitutionSearch the Annotated Constitution of the United StatesU.S. Supreme Court: Historic Right of Privacy-Personal Autonomy DecisionsGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)Lawrence v. Texas(2003)State Judicial DecisionsN.Y. Court of Appeals:Commentary from liibulletin-nySearch N.Y. Court of Appeals DecisionsAppellate Decisions from Other StatesOther ReferencesGood Starting Point, including a short history of Prostitution and the following references:Turkington & Allen-Castellitto Privacy Law: Cases & Materials, West Group (2002)Barry, K. (1996). The prostitution of sexuality. New York, NY: New York University Press.Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Garrett, S. B., Muth, S. Q., John M. Roberts, J., Kasprzyk, D., et al. (2000). Prostitution and the sex discrepancy in reported number of sexual partners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 12385–12388.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1977). Sin, sickness, and sanity: A history of sexual attitudes. New York, NY: New American Library.Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. (2011). Sociology of deviant behavior (14th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Davis, K. (1937). The sociology of prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2, 744–755.Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.McCaslin, J. (1999, October 13). Vaginal politics. Washington Times, p. A8.Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminal justice and moral issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Ordway, R. (1995, May 26). Relaxation spas perplex officials. The Bangor Daily News, p. 1.Ringdal, N. J. (2004). Love for sale: A world history of prostitution (R. Daly, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press.Rosen, R. (1983). The lost sisterhood: Prostitution in America, 1900–1918. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Stanford, S. (1966). The lady of the house. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam.Weitzer, R. (2009). Sociology of sex work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(0360-0572, 0360-0572), 213–234.Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. New York, NY: New York University Press.Weitzer, R. (2012). Prostitution: Facts and fictions. In D. Hartmann & C. Uggen (Eds.), The Contexts reader (pp. 223–230). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Footnotes[1] Social Problems: Continuity and Change