Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45
  1. #31
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,431
    Rep Power
    37
    Rep Level
    6033
    Quote Originally Posted by Nate505 View Post
    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-illegal immigration can have that bone if they want it.
    Fixed.

  2. #32
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,364
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    Fixed.
    I let that slide as I didnt feel like arguing that point.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  3. #33
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,364
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    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?
    It is pretty clear already but I like you so one more time.

    In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.

    If a person came to the US legally and had a baby here their baby would be a US citizen.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  4. #34
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,431
    Rep Power
    37
    Rep Level
    6033
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    It is pretty clear already but I like you so one more time.

    In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.

    If a person came to the US legally and had a baby here their baby would be a US citizen.
    Wait, I still don't understand. Are you saying people that come here illegally and use the free birth control and still get pregnant, that their child will or won't be a US citizen?

  5. #35
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,364
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    Wait, I still don't understand. Are you saying people that come here illegally and use the free birth control and still get pregnant, that their child will or won't be a US citizen?
    That is because you are un mongolo. Cheers!
    #BelieveInLindsey

  6. #36
    Lazy Nate505's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    5,278
    Rep Power
    41
    Rep Level
    7437
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    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?
    Yes. If Congress wants to go repeal the 14th Amendment then fine, but until then it's extremely unconstitutional.

  7.  

     

  8. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,781
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4567
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    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?
    Home***ingrun. Typical Scat horse***

  9. #38
    Senior Member PearlWatson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    on your mind
    Posts
    3,726
    Rep Power
    25
    Rep Level
    3456
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    Not a fan of the amnesty bit but I would take the deal just to get **** done.

    Oh, and I agree with the thought that we should be throwing green cards to any and every well educated person on the planet; doctors, engineers, nurses, etc. That said, we can deport the lawyers and politicians.
    That's what Reagan did (compromised on amnesty) and the Democrat congress didn't keep up their end of the deal on securing the border.

    Why do you want MORE competition for jobs on the low and high end of the spectrum?
    Democrat motto:
    Quote Originally Posted by NAOS View Post
    Why should we work?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirkickyass View Post
    Pearl is right

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,971
    Rep Power
    40
    Rep Level
    7106
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    In my proposal after all the other changes take affect an illegal immigrant comes to the US. They get preggo and have a kid. That baby would not be an American citizen. This change would apply to illegal immigrants only.
    What would the status of the baby be? Why does the citizenship of the baby matter to you?
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  11. #40
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,364
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    What would the status of the baby be? Why does the citizenship of the baby matter to you?
    Illegal immigrant.

    In alot of cases these children end up on programs such as Medicaid. This is because the parents do not have social security numbers and are working under the table or under false SSNs and won't report that for various reasons.

    Stop the flow and reset so to speak. Then have harder enforcement for those that break the immigration laws afterwards(that includes businesses). Perhaps bill the nation they come from by means as deducting the airfare and cost of detention from foreign aid to whatever country they came from.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  12. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,971
    Rep Power
    40
    Rep Level
    7106
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    Illegal immigrant.
    Yes, that would be a deal-breaker for me. A kid born in the US, perhaps not even speaking Spanish well, has no path to citizenship? That's profoundly anti-American (as well as un-Constitutional).

    If the baby is in the US and not on Medicaid, does that mean it only gets emergency-room care? No vaccinations, well-child checks, etc.? That's a huge health risk not just for the baby, but for all the legal citizens as well. Where does the kid stay if the parents are caught, and jailed, under your provisions? I don't think it could be in US foster care, could it?
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  13. #42
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,364
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Yes, that would be a deal-breaker for me. A kid born in the US, perhaps not even speaking Spanish well, has no path to citizenship? That's profoundly anti-American (as well as un-Constitutional).

    If the baby is in the US and not on Medicaid, does that mean it only gets emergency-room care? No vaccinations, well-child checks, etc.? That's a huge health risk not just for the baby, but for all the legal citizens as well. Where does the kid stay if the parents are caught, and jailed, under your provisions? I don't think it could be in US foster care, could it?
    I never indicated that the parents would be jailed. That is your own assumption. I would hav ethem immediately deported with the child and billt he government they came from. Have a heavy fine on businesses and American citizens that shelter/assist them in hiding. For non citizens that bring in or shelter (knowingly) illegals they lose their status and are sent home as well.

    Deal breaker huh? Fair enough. What about you Nate?

    Edit: Keep in mind this is all just a hypothetical in an attempt to find a compromise.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  14. #43
    Senior Member The Thriller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    On the Booz Cruise
    Posts
    9,432
    Rep Power
    45
    Rep Level
    8655


    It's so funny to watch the GOP (folks like scat and stoked), like a dog chasing its own tail, blame this election loss on everything under the moon other than themselves.

    First, it was Obama and his unions. He catered to unions and blacks. Then, he bought off the car people with bailouts. And then he was going to take everyone's guns and destroy religion.

    Then, Obamacare was going to be his Waterloo. Which is so weird because Obamacare was the GOP's HC reform proposal just a few years ago. It was created by the Heritage Foundation, supported by Orrin Hatch, and implemented at a state level by Gov Romney. Suddenly their own HC reform plan becomes "Socialism", a gov "takeover", and "death panels" because a Demo suggests it? HUH???

    Then, Mitt Romney came along. He was, at first, a bad candidate and far too Mormon and flip flopped too much. The pizza guy was the answer. Then it was the Texas dude (until he forgot his line). Then it was Newt!
    Then Romney was essentially given the ticket because he was the only one who stood a chance to beat Obama (because all the other candidates were too idiotic).
    Then... Romney suddenly became great. He was the ideal candidate because he understood business! His flip flopping showed how moderate he was and how he could go across the aisle to get things done!
    He was guaranteed to win! It was all over for Obama!

    Then.... Romney lost... Big.

    First, it was because of young people, Hispanics, women, blacks, unions, and poor people.

    then it was blamed on the repub primaries which just left all their candidates too tainted (as if the 08 Demo primaries weren't bad???).

    Now, the repubs are blaming Romney for not attacking Obama more on the economy and Libya.

    keep chasing that dog tail! Eventually you'll get it repubs!

    Keep avoiding the elephant in the room...
    Corbin sucks.

  15. #44
    Senior Member The Thriller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    On the Booz Cruise
    Posts
    9,432
    Rep Power
    45
    Rep Level
    8655
    Crazy... Just... Crazy... You lost the election in part, because of morons like these:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...ut-of-one.html

    The Election made me wonder how we could arrive at another four years of an Obama Administration. Previous presidents strengthened the U.S. and united it as e pluribus Unum, i.e., "one out of many." President Obama has splintered the U.S. into "many out of one."

    Think about George Washington. He helped establish the U.S and generate the Constitution, the greatest God-inspired civil document; Abraham Lincoln helped to keep the United States united; Wilson and Roosevelt protected the U.S. from foreign aggressors; The Bushes led the U.S. to stop the overrun of smaller countries by foreign aggressors; Obama proceeded to fundamentally change America by forcing medical care upon U.S. citizens and overruled constitutional laws by his executive orders, etc.

    The roughly 48 percent of U.S. voters who did not vote for Obama and his "changes" need to continue to abide by the Constitution and fight such changes for and with all their God-given rights.

    Don Olson
    and

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...r-mistake.html

    Want to know who's really to blame for the Obama re-election? The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which voted to raise the debt ceiling. Had they not done that, Obama would have had no money to buy votes with cellphones, food stamps, etc.

    Tell the Republicans to avoid another fatal mistake.

    Craig Crippen
    Someone might want to inform Craig that this free phone stuff was started by Reagan.... But of course AM radio didn't tell him that.
    Corbin sucks.

  16. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a ghetto near you. . . .
    Posts
    5,240
    Rep Power
    48
    Rep Level
    10029
    The institutionalized government spending owes its existence to both major parties, who have taken turns running up the debt as if it's something to be proud of, and both when "out of power" have complained about irresponsible spending by the party in power. The fact remains, we had no real choice in the past election, Romney would have run up the deficit too. Recent moves by House majority leader Boehner to cut conservatives out of committee positions because of "wrong" votes for more responsible budgets have proven the point.

    Still, at least Romney wasn't blatantly anti-American and would have stood for a stronger America, and some other needed reforms. . . . even if he was "owned" by the banksters. . . . . better than just being a pure demagogue.

    Obama "won" the latino vote by handing out privileges that should have been the subject of legislation, and by playing on class divisions essentially promising more govenment spending for everyone. He "won" the Union vote by harping on Mitts comments about how a bankruptcy court would restructure failing auto corps. . . . essentially the same way Obama did it. . . . Private capital would have picked up the "business" and redeployed it. . . . having the taxpayer money and government strings attached was OK for a while, but the managers sure hurried to repay the borrowed money and get clear of the gov control......

    Mitt is in the business of turning businesses around with his own methods, sometimes taking them through bankruptcy in the process. Most substantial businesses that go into bankruptcy acquire a new management team, and go on with business. . . . Obama's measures left the old, failing, management in place and probably actually hindered progress towards better management. . . .

    We have more reason to thank the Chinese for buying American cars like Buicks than to thank Obama. Obama is street-smart, unlike Mitt, and knows how to motivate more voters with promises made at your expense. . . if you are a taxpayer. . . . that's all there is to it.

    Beyond these few issues, Mitt and Barry are just blood brothers willing to manage Plantation America for the bosses. . . . including everyone on the government teats.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •