1) No problem thereOriginally Posted by Stoked
2) Pretty much a myth. I would be opposed to changing the 14th Amendment, though, if that's what you meant. Looking at countries without it, you wind up with generational second-class natives (such as the grandchildren of Turkish workers in Germany).
3) Sound good.
4) Isn't that already happening (departation after jail)?
5) I would agree with that provision.
That's as opposed to the gifts of the separate tax struture for capital gains taxes, the lowering of the top marginal tax rate, etc., which doesn't cater to any segment of society? I may have misread your tone, but to me it reeked of "those people want goodies instead of a responsible, fair government". Do you have enough self-reflection to see that both sides see themselves as wanting a responsible, fiar government, and both sides can paint the others as the ones demanding the goodies?
How do you figure. A child born to illegal parents in the US is a US citizen. I do not agree with that. Keep in mind my offer of a deal would only deal with those that are born in the future not the ones already born.
Example. A year after the deal goes into effect and the border is secure an illegal immigrant arrives int he US and after a few months has a child. That child is an illegal immigrant as well. So when we catch mom and dad and send them home their child goes with them and has no rights to US citizenship.
That would of course require estensive immigration enforcement.
Kind of ironic the Master Flip Flopper of our age complaining about Obama catering to people and offering folks promises and gifts in exchange for votes. Just what exactly was his motivation in flip flopping and changing his point of view on literally every single campaign issue?
Offering folks what they want and making campaign promises is the very definition of campaigning. That's what the election is for.
Mitt Romney offered tax cuts for the rich, greater defense spending, wanting to get tough against Iran and China, the elimination of Big Bird, and the repeal of Obamcare... Then he offered the complete opposite a few hundred times as well... LOL... In fact, was there anything that Mitt Romney didn't promise? Difficult to keep track.
anyway, depending on your perspective, you could easily accuse Mitters of catering to the rich, promising more defense spending (and checks to contractors), promising more private ownership and funding into PBS, and catered to his special interest groups for Obamacare. He promised old white Christian males a lot of things. And lost.
If promising stuff was wrong then the whole campaign system is wrong.
If repubs want to get rid of making promises and offering "gifts" then that's fine. Just make sure that you folks play the same rules.
No more talk of repealing Obamacare, No more talk of privatizing SS, no more defense spending increases, no more oil/gas subsidies, no more promises that you'll "get tough" on immigration, no more wall construction talk between us and Mexico, and my personal favorite, NO MORE PROMISES TO BUILD SPACE BASES ON THE MOON WHILE CAMPAIGNING IN FLORIDA!!!
How is promising to allow homosexuals to be married promising gifts, free stuff, buying off votes different from promising to define marriage as a union of a man and woman? Isn't that essentially buying people off? I don't get how it's different.
Last edited by The Thriller; 11-15-2012 at 04:31 PM.
Corbin sucks.
If a baby is born in the US to illigal immagrants, the parents can still be deported. They will normally take the child with them. When the kid turns 18, the child can return to the US as a citizen, and then request the legal immigration of their parents, which is still not guaranteed. I just find it very difficult to believe that people have kids in order to legally immigrate to the US 19 years in the future.
According to the 14th Amendment, if illegals can be prosecuted for violations of drug laws and the like (and thus are subject to our laws), their kids born on US soil will be citizens. Do you really want ot repeal that? Alternatively, do you want to say those illegal immigrants aren't subject to our laws?
The separate tax structure is a reflection on reality. The exact rate is where the gifting comes in.
You can earn a 4% nominal return saving for retirement, have a real return of $0, but still have to pay taxes under a system treating all forms of income identical to earned income. Hence the reason those who are least likely to earn a return in excess of the inflation hurdle rate currently pay 0% in taxes on capital gains and dividends held long term.
Higher income earners who earn double the rate of inflation are currently taxed at 30% in real terms. I'm guessing those who earn in excess of that are way more likely to pay an inheritance tax. The real gifts are in deduction loopholes. Mentioning charitable deductions and life insurance benefits is more on point IMO (Mitt Romney plan hint hint).
FWIW, raising taxes on dividends & capital gains would be the best way to raise my taxes without hurting the economy one bit. They should go up moderately.
*illegal immigrants
I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat, I just see them as the lesser of two evils. But even with that said, this post is right on. The campaign is over. No need to keep painting the opposing candidate in the worst possible light.
"Yeah, I got a way to defend it. Bring a bat to the game and kill one of them."
-Nick Van Exel, on defending the Stockton-Malone Pick & Roll
1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-immigration can have that bone if they want it.
2. Nope. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
3. Sure.
4. Sure.
5. Great idea.
It started with Earl [Watson], Randy [Foye] and Marvin [Williams]–the veteran guys. I thought the young guys did a good job of following their lead getting us off to a good start. - referring to the Jazz/Bobcats game on 3/1/13
Earl, Randy, and Marvin started the first quarter 0-3, scored a whopping zero points, and finished with a turnover in the first quarter.
Your head coach of the Jazz ladies and gentlemen.
Has there ever been a period in history when the Presidential race wasn't a popularity contest? Other than the couple times the guy who won the popular vote lost the electoral college?
It started with Earl [Watson], Randy [Foye] and Marvin [Williams]–the veteran guys. I thought the young guys did a good job of following their lead getting us off to a good start. - referring to the Jazz/Bobcats game on 3/1/13
Earl, Randy, and Marvin started the first quarter 0-3, scored a whopping zero points, and finished with a turnover in the first quarter.
Your head coach of the Jazz ladies and gentlemen.
But it's so much fun dancing on his proverbial political grave. Though I'm far happier than social conservatism took a huge hit this election, thank whatever deity you believe (or not) in.
It started with Earl [Watson], Randy [Foye] and Marvin [Williams]–the veteran guys. I thought the young guys did a good job of following their lead getting us off to a good start. - referring to the Jazz/Bobcats game on 3/1/13
Earl, Randy, and Marvin started the first quarter 0-3, scored a whopping zero points, and finished with a turnover in the first quarter.
Your head coach of the Jazz ladies and gentlemen.
OK, however you and One Brow still didn't answer the question. Would you take a deal that does all of the above?
Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?
I don't have a problem with unicorns, leprechauns, or anchor babies. If what you really mean is anchor babies as I understand the term (babies being had so their parents can stay in the country), no problem for me. Current law makes this impossible anyhow.
On the other hand, if you mean changing the 14th Amendment (you have not confirmed this, so I'm not sure this is what you mean), I do have a problem. Again, look at the issues Germany had before moving from jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage) to jus soli (citizenship through place of birth).
Either way, it would really help if you clarified when a baby is an "anchor baby", to you.
In this case I was just using the term to describe babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.
No more anchor babies for babies born in the future
I assume you don't mean it will be illegal for illegal immigrants to become pregnant. Can you be a little more precise? Do you mean these kids, born on American soil, won't be US citizens at all? Will they also be considered illegal immigrants? Would they have a path to citizenship?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote