Serious question here, not intentionally related to the topic at hand.
99.999% are born, live and die etc suggests that this is all because of Israel and the fact that people Palestinians can't travel freely into Israel proper. But when I look at a map, I see that the Gaza strip shares a border with Egypt. Why is Egypt not considered a bad actor here if free movement is the basis of discussion, too? Does Egypt not consider Palestinians acceptable for immigration?

Funny, the head of my department said my degree was in Software Engineering in 1988. Then I got a job doing computer engineering and didn't write a meaningful program (though I did fix a lot of programs for CS majors who didn't understand the underlying systems implementations well enough) again until about 1997, so perhaps you have a point.

I live outside the USA, I can not go to a USA emergency room for free care (or paid care, for that matter). Buying insurance in the USA that would cover me in China is cost prohibitive (effectively it is a 365 day travel policy at a cost roughly 10x the most expensive general policy insurance you might have encountered), my employer (not a USA company) doesn't provide me anything that the health care law in the USA recognizes as meaningful insurance. I am therefore subject to the non-insured tax unless I surrender my USA citizenship, as far as I can tell.

Exactly how does this make sense?

You fixed nothing except to demonstrate you not only have no knowledge of Texas electioneering laws, you also have a complete unwillingness to learn enough to follow the discussion even at the level of a USA Today article. Texas law does permit election monitors within 100 feet as long as they follow all the regulations. One of the regulations is that the monitors must be from the area where the poll is. If the OSCE wants to have monitors who won't be in violation of the law, they can- just like any other group, find someone who lives in the area and sign them up to be a monitor.

Now, do I AGREE with that law? Well, I can say I believe I understand the history behind why it exists.
Do I think that exceptions should be built into the law for this situation? Yes, but only by modifying the structure of the law to permit it, not by violating the law as written. Until the law gets changed (or overridden via treaty, which the agreement between the federal government and OSCE is not), follow the rules or get outside the 100 foot perimeter. If it is too difficult to follow the rules and you insist on being inside the 100 foot perimeter, plan to discuss your plight with the local magistrate.

I am actually aware that the U.N. and OSCE are separate entities, and conflating the two was inappropriate, but doesn't change the point. I will give a mea culpa, all the misinformed AC's can replace all instances of U.N. with OSCE, and state law will still trump a federal agreement (non-treaty obligation).

As I said before, I think international observers SHOULD be allowed in to observe elections at polling places across the country, and if I were in a position to vote for a law to permit it in Texas I would.

If the international observers are unable to go within 100 feet of a Texas polling place, though, following your suggestion I happen to know a poling place that will allow people (men, actually, women with a male escort) within about 6 feet of the poles- the Yellow Rose on North Lamar Avenue in Austin, TX will be happy receive them. I am sure the girls there won't even mind being tipped in Euros!

The only treaty signed was the one in your mind.

Texas supreme to international law?
There is an apocryphal (probably) story about a British lord who visited a ranch out in Texas. Looking for the owner of the ranch, he walked up to one of the ranch hands and asked,"My dear chap, could you tell me where I could find your master?" The response was,"That man ain't been born yet."

What does that have to do with this situation? Nothing, I just love that story.

The agreement with the OSCE (what is the OECD? The Old English Commonwealth Dictionary?) is not a law, international or otherwise. The USA, and by extension, the states of the USA, are not bound to it by treaty. As such, I do consider the rule of law in Texas to be supreme to the rule of non-law that is the OSCE. And I consider the rules that permit them in other states to be supreme for them, as well. However, if you had actually read my posting instead of getting all knee jerk about it:
"Now personally, I have no problems with international observers as long as the only thing they do is observe and don't interfere in any way, shape, or form. I think the USA should be setting a good example- demonstrating by example how to peacefully change government and prosecuting fully anyone attempting to interfere with that capability. But it is up to the federal government to persuade the states to achieve this, not to violate the Constitution and enforce it by fiat."

Oh, and by the way, I live in the province of Beijing, not Texas, though I was lucky enough to get to spend a lot of time in Texas during my life.

That point that you and the other ACs (or maybe the same AC) keep missing is that the AGREEMENT that the USA is a party to with the OSCE is NOT a TREATY. Until such time as it IS a treaty, state law trumps this agreement. Clear enough?

Then, reread what I wrote, AC. Specifically the part where I wrote:
"If the US government believes that this is so important that state law should be subsumed, the executive branch should elevate the agreement to a treaty and get it passed through the Senate to be ratified so that the Supremacy Clause can take effect. Until then, state law trumps international hand waving 'agreements' at the state level within the USA."

Texas, at least, is not threatening to arrest election monitors. It is threatening to arrest election monitors who don't follow Texas law regulating election monitors. There are (for early voting) and will be (for election day) LOTS of election monitors in probably every voting location in Texas within the 100 foot limit: the only ones who would be arrested will be those not following the law, and certainly not before they receive a warning to follow the law (though anyone from the U.N. should probably consider themselves already warned). If the U.N. wants to monitor Texas elections, they can- just follow the law. If they don't know the law and can't be bothered to read it for themselves, I am sure they can find a lawyer who will be happy to advise them for a reasonable fee (but only one and his number is unlisted, the rest of them will charge outrageous fees commensurate with their belief that laws should be written so confusingly that only an ordained lawyer can decipher them).

Agreements between the US government and non-US entities are just that- agreements between them at that level. They do not affect the 50 states unless those states also sign on to the agreement or otherwise pass/change laws to achieve compliance with the agreement, particularly with regards to voting which is a state level activity- the federal government only has a say as to when the vote is made, not how (unless the how falls afoul of federal law that the Supremacy Clause is in effect for). If the US government believes that this is so important that state law should be subsumed, the executive branch should elevate the agreement to a treaty and get it passed through the Senate to be ratified so that the Supremacy Clause can take effect. Until then, state law trumps international hand waving 'agreements' at the state level within the USA.

Now personally, I have no problems with international observers as long as the only thing they do is observe and don't interfere in any way, shape, or form. I think the USA should be setting a good example- demonstrating by example how to peacefully change government and prosecuting fully anyone attempting to interfere with that capability. But it is up to the federal government to persuade the states to achieve this, not to violate the Constitution and enforce it by fiat.

If you can't figure out how to make 11 the best, you haven't worked hard enough.

Bah, slip of the mouse and modded this redundant... Bye bye, wasted mod points, you had such a short and not so fruitful life...

I was teaching Huawei how to design in the PowerPC CPUs for their first switch designs in 1998, so your timing is about right. I was doing the same for Cisco starting around mid-1994. Their ice cream ping parties were great.

Would it bother you too much if I pointed out that Foxconn (Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., actually, Foxconn is the trade name) and Asus are both Taiwanese companies, and the USA generally considers Taiwan to not be a part of China (at least for purposes of defense and business). Perhaps you meant Lenovo and ... never mind, China doesn't have an ODM anywhere close to Foxconn.

Grammar Nazi trolling is more of a science, actually. Normal everyday trolling is more of AN art.

Errr, Glenn Beck hasn't worked for Fox News in over a year.

I live in China, don't watch Fox News (or any other American television channels), and even I am aware that Fox/NBC/CBS/ABC don't run straight news shows during prime time- they run them between 5 and 7 pm or 10 and 11:30 or so, depending on the time zone, because running news during their most profitable hours would put them out of business. So why is Fox News unserious for running commentary at the times when they can maximize profits with other programs just as their competitors do with Monday Night Football, Law & Order, The Simpsons, etc...?

Oh, wait, I misunderstand, you are comparing Fox News to MSNBC and CNN who run hard news with no shock-jocks during their prime time schedules like Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Rachel Maddow Show, PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, Anderson Cooper 360, and Piers Morgan Tonight(*). Oh... wait... now I get it, you are saying that there is no serious news reported in the USA except for CNN Headline News! That's the ticket!

* I had to actually search for all those TV show names, if some of them aren't on the air anymore, my bad.