Sound Blaster Live 1024 Drivers Vista

DDL security, Article 1 fighting clendestinità

photos taken from "Trout Fun Club" on Facebook, founded by Claudio Sabelli Fioretti

that the presence of illegal immigrants in Italy is a problem is undeniable. A stowaway even when they commit a crime, nevertheless, generate a series of problems and difficulties related to an inability to exercise certain rights and obligations.
Therefore I would not give an adverse opinion on the main part of ' Article 1, paragraph 16 that the introducing the crime of illegal immigration .
But if it is true that secrecy is itself problematic is also true that illegal immigrants are not just criminals, there are also people who are absolutely honest here looking for a possibility, and seek this opportunity to help families Italian, forage for our pensions, and take up some sectors of Italian (esistono inoltre clandestini che sono o diventano tali non tanto per essersi intrufolati nei confini italiani, ma più per essersi persi nell'italica burocrazia).

Contrassegnare una situazione problematica e renderla reato è una scelta, non è un automatismo e non risolve una precedente lacuna, significa seguire una determinata strada (un esempio può essere la prostituzione, è una situazione problematica, ma renderla reato è una scelta non obbligata).
La domanda è: Questa strada è quella corretta?
Maggiori controlli e regole su ricongiungimenti, matrimoni fittizi e quant'altro sono norme positive. L'aumentata severità verso chi accumula guadagni sfruttando illegal entry into Italy is certainly positive, the crackdown on those who rent housing to illegal immigrants has a positive side (which, however, is economic: more apartments free, less income in black, and more severity to the Italian that greedy rent at high prices by exploiting the needs of illegal immigrants) and a negative (more difficult for illegal immigrants to find a home) that is added to a series of other measures in the abstract that follow the general idea of \u200b\u200bthe fight against illegal immigration, but in reality are not only make life more difficult for those people who are indeed illegal, but they are honest (for example, costs for obtaining and renewing permission to stay as they are needed and how are they useful? Who uses the residence permit to stay in Italy and live in illegal activities has a far greater economic opportunities of a clandestine poor maybe because honest. In the other direction instead goes to the waiver provision that would have forced principals and health care professionals to report illegal immigrants).

New question: who is right or wrong, this road is effective?
Will we manage to wipe out the underground or perhaps honest significant number of illegal immigrants will be forced to gravitate to organized crime to continue to cultivate their hope for life in Italy?
I do not know if the logic of effectiveness can lead to this rule, however, what is evident is that this rule does not come from logic of efficiency, but two other needs.
The first is to solve the Italian and Mediterranean alone in facing a problematic situation from which the latita Europe.
The second is to satisfy the leadership of the populist Northern League, and then election and by implication its basin full of racism.
Both these strategies are the same that led the government to action on the edge of illegality or possibly illegal, that is, of rejection at sea for a problem that affects 15% of illegal entry (5% according to one of leading experts on migration) in Italy, and not insignificant part of this 15% has the right to stay in Italy. Why did you choose a much-discussed practice as blatant? Perhaps because the action by sea is one of the few able to stop one of the many streams, but also the only one that can boast of the numbers.

Finally a comment on the identification and deportation centers (CIE) and ADCs (CPT): 1 or 180 days does not matter, not worthy of a civilized country that will become centers for immigrants in some prisons theaters of militarized violence and abuse, which is not allowed in the visit of journalists, opposition lawmakers and outside observers.

Easy Statutory Durable Power Of Attorney

Comment on patrols of volunteers (DDL security. Article 3, paragraphs 40 41 42 43 44)



Article 3 provides the opportunity for mayors to support associations of citizens to the police, whose task is to report situations where intervention is needed of them. The associations have to be included in a list maintained by the prefect and mayors will have to choose between them, as a priority, those consisting of retired members of the police, the armed forces, and other state bodies. The associations included in the lists should not be the target of economic resources in charge of public finance, it is unclear whether this also applies to those specific groups (ex-Forces order, the former armed forces, etc..) that have a priority over the others.
This is the essence of the law, now the reflections:
- The more people on the streets the better, it is hoped that voluntary groups bring more security and then ripopolino the streets of citizens to leave, thus avoiding degradation of the prey.
- It is hoped that none of these associations, none, or receive any kind of direct or indirect subsidies, it is useless to spend resources (including minimum) to support tasks bland when law enforcement has long been living with a large shortage of resources * (scarcity of resources declared by the same forces, not by some mysterious enemy of the government).
- Alcuni sindacati di polizia dichiarano che le ronde sono inutili e dannose perché impegneranno le forze dell'ordine in compiti di controllo e difesa dei cittadini volontari.
- Per concludere, bisogna segnalare che alcune associazioni di volontari desiderosi di pattugliare le strade si sono distinte di recente per la loro appartenenza a gruppi politici o ad ideologie pericolose , non si può nascondere il probabile problema della caccia-al-diverso (caccia al negro, al frocio, al fascista, al comunista, al tifoso avverso, al giovane, allo zingaro, al ricco, al barbone...sono solo alcune tra le tante). Impedire l'uso di simboli, richiami politici e divise non garantisce sulle intenzioni volunteers, even if you do not solve the problem in the bud (for example, by prohibiting organizations and constituting only a single list of citizen volunteers organized by the municipality itself, thus avoiding the danger that the associations have an ideological view of safety) is better that there are these symbols, these black shirts, and be clearly visible so that people can visibly see that there is a potential danger and that it is better to avoid these new masters of the road .. . and again all at home, but empty streets patrolled.

* Do not be surprised to see that much in funds allocated to these associations, given the tendency to spend money unnecessary operations on the security front. The operation "safer streets" that military usage 3000 (now 4000) in Italian cities, has a strong economic impact. The military as professionals have a fixed salary, and at the time of their use in an operational theater, and the operation "safe streets" shall be considered, must receive what is essentially a pay rise, which in this case specifically would be around € 500 more per month. A quick calculation shows that it is costly military presence on Italian roads, those resources could be used for law enforcement officers (who have full powers of intervention as opposed to the military but can only identify e perquisire ma non arrestare). I militari sono un supporto utile, spettacolare ma molto dispendioso.