User talk:Jcalmac

I would like the redirection on Permenant Resident removed and paste the following content:

Permanent resident The word resident is qualified by the term 'permanent' which denotes that the resident has lawful status and is a Subject to the 'rule of Law' under the terms of Equality and Justice. Because the rule of Law is permanent and NOT negotiable then neither are the terms of residency.

A visa is, by it's nature, temporary and it's terms need a written agreement authorised by the permanent resident as the Subject under their Rights to self-determination. No agreement then no visa required i.e. something for something, Law; Quid Pro Quo.

Electronically, the written agreement can be referenced, using a unique identifier, as valid without the need for duplication as data. The content of the terms of the visa is standard and, therefore, the unique identifier simply needs to be present as it will lapse after expiry. Only a bona-fide immigration officer needs the level of permissions to diplay the existance of the unique identifier. Any variation in the duration of the agreement for a visa can be noted in the formation of the unique identifier which can be interpreted for display and ease of use. <ref: this content is self affirming - as such it is operable whereas the Permanent Residency content is not and operates without choice by menacing travel carriers with fines+non payment of return fares for those refused admission, with the result that at check-in staff are expected to act as immigration agents at the individual's point of departure (another country) and refuse boarding if they suspect the customer will be refused entry, regardless of the purchase of a valid ticket.> </ref: Encyclopedia...Mid 16th century: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia all-round education. Wikipedia needs to ensure all round education by validating content by proof reading>

Thank you for your suggestions. Could you give a reason why these paragraphs are preferable to the current content at Permanent residency? It seems that the general scope of your remarks are already covered at that article. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already given the reason...<ref: this content is self affirming - as such it is operable whereas the Permanent Residency content is not operable...

The Permanent Residency pages are NOT dependent on the root premise (as above Permanent resident) under the rule of law, but are dependant on the issue of a temporary visa, which is regulated, arbitrarily by a minister of immigration who indeed may responsible for authorising permanent residence, forced by disallowing choice, and monies are not refundable because payment is for the application and not for the visa.

The Permanent Residency pages are NOT dependent on the root premise (as above Permanent resident) under the rule of law, but are dependant on the issue of a temporary visa, which is regulated, arbitrarily by a minister of immigration who indeed may responsible for authorising permanent residence, forced by disallowing choice, and monies are not refundable as the payment is not for the visa but for the application. In law this is concurrence or duplication of regulation by deviation and obstruction of Due process, demanding money with menace etc etc etc.

Therefore there is no conflict of interest but a necessary correction...Wikipedia needs to ensure all round education by validating content by proof reading...I am pointing out that the current pages are fundamentally biased in favour of government misinformation.

I wish the 1st 2 paragraphs, to be initially displayed under a Permanent Resident page. After which others may enhance these 2 correct definitions, as self-evident, and redefine individual countries expectations under this root premise rather than, as is, accepting content without proof reading which has led to Wikipedia be used as a platform for misinformation...