# How does an 'anchor baby' legally anchor his illegal alien parents ?



## ScreamingEagle

If an illegal alien woman has a baby in the U.S. (who is then considered to be a U.S. citizen) what exactly gives her the right to remain in the U.S. ?  

None of the following mechanisms seem to bring in a parent legally....
_
There are four different mechanisms at work here, as my CIS colleague, Jon Feere, and I see it:_

_the most obvious, and the least numerically significant, is the right of a 21-year-old citizen to petition for immigrant status for a non-citizen parent. By definition, this cannot happen until at least 21 years have passed._
_under some quite precise circumstances the presence of a U.S.-born child of an illegal alien, or a green card holder in trouble with the law, can cause a judge to grant legal status to an alien who would not get it otherwise._
_much more important is the hidden, undocumented, and uncounted influence of the presence of a U.S.-citizen child in the household of an illegal alien; officials are less likely to deport the parent of such a child than they are to deport an alien who is otherwise similar, but childless._
_the fourth mechanism may be more important than all the rest, and is the least susceptible to counting. This is the perception in the minds of the illegal alien parents, usually mothers, that somehow the presence of a U.S.-born baby will be helpful to parents in immigration proceedings. That thought process probably works, in most instances, without any detailed knowledge of the three mechanisms noted above._
_From a broader policy point of view the presence of the U.S.-citizen child of an illegal alien is part of the whole business of chain migration, a worrisome process to many of us._

Just How Does an Anchor Baby Anchor the Illegal Alien Parent?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JakeStarkey said:


> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.


IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Some would argue that.

The proper method would be to give her legitimate status as a temporary resident in America.


----------



## Little-Acorn

ScreamingEagle said:


> If an illegal alien woman has a baby in the U.S. (who is then considered to be a U.S. citizen) what exactly gives her the right to remain in the U.S. ?


Any U.S. citizen with foreign-born parents, when the parents still live in their home country, can petition the govt to issue the parents a green card and visa. And longstanding U.S. laws allow that petition to be granted. Many foreigners come legally into the United States by this method.

In the case of an anchor baby, that's a baby whose mother came illegally into the U.S. and has her baby on this side of the border. By current interpretation of the 14th amendment, that baby is then considered a U.S. citizen, even if the mother immediately goes back to her home country.

When the baby grows up and turns 18, he can then petition the govt to let his parents come in legally, and that petition is often granted, despite the parents' proven violation of immigration law in coming across the border to have the baby in the first place.

Hope this helps you understand.


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
Click to expand...


That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.

The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence. 

That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby...


Horseshit.

Anytime that an Illegal Alien gives birth upon US soil while they are in non-compliance with US Immigration Law, that child is an Anchor Baby, in the vernacular usage.



> ...only citizenship...


Through the back door (an unintended loophole associated with the 14th Amendment).



> ...the citizen has the right to stay in America...


True.

Unfortunately.



> ...The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.


True.

But the government has EVERY right to deport the child's Illegal Alien parent(s).

But they oftentimes do not, owing to humanitarian concerns over the welfare of the child.

Illegal Aliens know this.

They MAY be deported, after giving birth to a child upon US soil, but they are usually NOT.

THAT is what they are counting on, in giving birth upon US soil - not being deported.

The child serves to anchor them upon US soil - therefore, the child is referred to as an Anchor Baby.

True story.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Little-Acorn said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an illegal alien woman has a baby in the U.S. (who is then considered to be a U.S. citizen) what exactly gives her the right to remain in the U.S. ?
> 
> 
> 
> Any U.S. citizen with foreign-born parents, when the parents still live in their home country, can petition the govt to issue the parents a green card and visa. And longstanding U.S. laws allow that petition to be granted. Many foreigners come legally into the United States by this method.
> 
> In the case of an anchor baby, that's a baby whose mother came illegally into the U.S. and has her baby on this side of the border. By current interpretation of the 14th amendment, that baby is then considered a U.S. citizen, even if the mother immediately goes back to her home country.
> 
> When the baby grows up and turns 18, he can then petition the govt to let his parents come in legally, and that petition is often granted, despite the parents' proven violation of immigration law in coming across the border to have the baby in the first place.
> 
> Hope this helps you understand.
Click to expand...

i already understand that.....it is the first item on the list of mechanism in my first post....but that does not address the problem with the illegal alien mother and father and siblings and whoever else already here in the U.S. with the newborn baby.....


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
Click to expand...


how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why?  Legal citizens are exactly that.  They have the right to live here.  If they are minors, they have the right to expect their parents to be given work permits and temporary residency.


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
Click to expand...


How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  Legal citizens are exactly that.  They have the right to live here.  If they are minors, they have the right to expect their parents to be given work permits and temporary residency.


where does the law state that....?


----------



## B. Kidd

Interestingly enough, SCOTUS has *never *ruled that the 14th amendment is applicable to anchor babies. The framers of the 14th clearly stated that it should not apply to illegal alien children which is why they included language about the person being under a 'foreign power'. 

Therefore, pass a law or let Trump sign an executive order, then let the Supreme Court decide.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
Click to expand...


it would be the choice of the parents to leave their own kid behind....actually i believe they should be forced to take the kid with them...

i'm not interested in winning over the hearts and minds of illegal aliens.....i'm more interested in saving our country.....

legal immigrants agree...


----------



## g5000

I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.

I would wager less than two percent.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JakeStarkey said:


> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.


there is no 'right' for that.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

ScreamingEagle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no 'right' for that.....
Click to expand...

The great American majority do not have to win the hearts and minds of the small minority Screaming Eagles.

We simply tell them "no".


----------



## B. Kidd

JakeStarkey said:


> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.



Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals. Those who immigrated legally and were eventually granted citizenship know that it is a right. Too bad that you don't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals. Those who immigrated legally and were eventually granted citizenship know that it is a right. Too bad that you don't.
Click to expand...

The GOP far right thinks if they keep yelling they will change folks mind.

You won't change their mind, Kidd,  No.


----------



## Syriusly

ScreamingEagle said:


> If an illegal alien woman has a baby in the U.S. (who is then considered to be a U.S. citizen) what exactly gives her the right to remain in the U.S. ?
> 
> None of the following mechanisms seem to bring in a parent legally....



She has no right to stay.


----------



## g5000

B. Kidd said:


> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.



Actually, they are citizens, period.


----------



## B. Kidd

*Trump 2016!* bitchez,........or otherwise, put a double-tap headshot into the America ye' knew.


----------



## B. Kidd

g5000 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
Click to expand...


Actually, you're wrong........so, time to test it!


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
Click to expand...



They can't vote because they are here illegally.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
Click to expand...

amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....


----------



## g5000

B. Kidd said:


> *Trump 2016!* bitchez,........or otherwise, put a double-tap headshot into the America ye' knew.


Trump 2016: For A Fifth Bankruptcy of a Going Concern!


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> ...How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?


The only Hispanics that have to worry about the deportation of the parents of Anchor Babies are Illegal Aliens. Everybody else is fine the way they are - Hispanics included.


----------



## whitehall

You gotta wonder what the hell is going on when even the republican candidates declare the 14th Amendment to be sanctified when it's clear that the 1868 Amendment was poorly written. It was written while reconstruction after the Civil War was going on and clearly intended to give the offspring of freed slaves citizenship. It never addressed the possibility that ten million criminals  fraudulently in the U.S. might claim U.S. citizenship for their children. It's ironic that the 14th Amendment is defended by mostly the radical left while they continue to attack the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution commonly called the "Bill of Rights".How many times do we see the left questioning the 2nd Amendment and picking apart the freedom of religion clause contained in the 1st Amendment?


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.

They are citizens, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, Trump if President will not issue such an order.

Two, Congress will not pass such a bill.

To Kidd and Eagle and white hall et al: "no".


----------



## B. Kidd

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
Click to expand...


The idiots forgot that two can play that game. Hopefully, it comes to fruition.


----------



## Kondor3

g5000 said:


> I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.
> 
> I would wager less than two percent.


Then it's not that big a deal.

Save your Pro-Illegals advocacy for subsets that really matter.


----------



## B. Kidd

whitehall said:


> You gotta wonder what the hell is going on when even the republican candidates declare the 14th Amendment to be sanctified when it's clear that the 1868 Amendment was poorly written. It was written while reconstruction after the Civil War was going on and clearly intended to give the offspring of freed slaves citizenship. It never addressed the possibility that ten million criminals  fraudulently in the U.S. might claim U.S. citizenship for their children. It's ironic that the 14th Amendment is defended by mostly the radical left while they continue to attack the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution commonly called the "Bill of Rights".How many times do we see the left questioning the 2nd Amendment and picking apart the freedom of religion clause contained in the 1st Amendment?


----------



## g5000

Kondor3 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.
> 
> I would wager less than two percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not that big a deal.
Click to expand...

So why are you tards making it one?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
Click to expand...

no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....


----------



## g5000

whitehall said:


> You gotta wonder what the hell is going on when even the republican candidates declare the 14th Amendment to be sanctified when it's clear that the 1868 Amendment was poorly written. It was written while reconstruction after the Civil War was going on and clearly intended to give the offspring of freed slaves citizenship. It never addressed the possibility that ten million criminals  fraudulently in the U.S. might claim U.S. citizenship for their children. It's ironic that the 14th Amendment is defended by mostly the radical left while they continue to attack the 1st ten Amendments to the Constitution commonly called the "Bill of Rights".How many times do we see the left questioning the 2nd Amendment and picking apart the freedom of religion clause contained in the 1st Amendment?


I had no idea Reagan was radical left!

Who knew?


----------



## Kondor3

g5000 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.
> 
> I would wager less than two percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not that big a deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you tards making it one?
Click to expand...

There is nothing 'retarded' about fighting against the Anchor Baby phenomenon.

The numbers are sufficiently high, and it sets bad precedents, and will draw future plagues of these locusts, if not dealt with soon.

Not to worry... that more draconian approach is coming...


----------



## B. Kidd

A very germane thread topic S-Eagle. You too sir, deserve applause............


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Kondor3 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.
> 
> I would wager less than two percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not that big a deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you tards making it one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing 'retarded' about fighting against the Anchor Baby phenomenon.
> 
> The numbers are sufficiently high, and it sets bad precedents, and will draw future plagues of these locusts, if not dealt with soon.
> 
> Not to worry... that more draconian approach is coming...
Click to expand...


we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here....it's time to ship them back home...


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it would be the choice of the parents to leave their own kid behind....actually i believe they should be forced to take the kid with them...
> 
> i'm not interested in winning over the hearts and minds of illegal aliens.....i'm more interested in saving our country.....
> 
> legal immigrants agree...
Click to expand...


There are millions of American voters who are Hispanics. They are the de facto swing vote that win or lose the election depending upon how you treat them.


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..



Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?

"I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it would be the choice of the parents to leave their own kid behind....actually i believe they should be forced to take the kid with them...
> 
> i'm not interested in winning over the hearts and minds of illegal aliens.....i'm more interested in saving our country.....
> 
> legal immigrants agree...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of American voters who are Hispanics. They are the de facto swing vote that win or lose the election depending upon how you treat them.
Click to expand...

if they are LEGAL voters they shouldn't mind sending back the ILLEGALS.....


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
Click to expand...


There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.

Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> 
> 
> The only Hispanics that have to worry about the deportation of the parents of Anchor Babies are Illegal Aliens. Everybody else is fine the way they are - Hispanics included.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the Hispanic American community is palpable.


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> if they are LEGAL voters they shouldn't mind sending back the ILLEGALS.....



They aren't as stupid as you are, or as stupid as you think they are. They are smart enough to see the racist motives behind the anti-immigrant rhetoric.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know how many women came here pregnant, out of the 11 million illegals,  and then gave birth here.
> 
> I would wager less than two percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not that big a deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you tards making it one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing 'retarded' about fighting against the Anchor Baby phenomenon.
> 
> The numbers are sufficiently high, and it sets bad precedents, and will draw future plagues of these locusts, if not dealt with soon.
> 
> Not to worry... that more draconian approach is coming...
Click to expand...


Nothing like exposing your inner bigot!


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the far right reactionary nativists continue to loon along.  No, guys.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
Click to expand...

when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it would be the choice of the parents to leave their own kid behind....actually i believe they should be forced to take the kid with them...
> 
> i'm not interested in winning over the hearts and minds of illegal aliens.....i'm more interested in saving our country.....
> 
> legal immigrants agree...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of American voters who are Hispanics. They are the de facto swing vote that win or lose the election depending upon how you treat them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if they are LEGAL voters they shouldn't mind sending back the ILLEGALS.....
Click to expand...


Have you even bothered to look at the polls on how Hispanics view the failure of republicans to address the question of immigration?


----------



## JakeStarkey

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
Click to expand...

No, Eagle.


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
Click to expand...

And there it is!  Again!  Wow!

First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that. 

Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.

See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!

"I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eagle has always been math challenged.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> ...Your ignorance of the Hispanic American community is palpable.


Doesn't matter, so long as more draconian measures unfold, in connection with the present invasion of 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> ...Nothing like exposing your inner bigot!


It is not Bigotry, to insist that 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens be sent home, so as not to reward their trespassing, and so as to discourage future and still larger waves.

It merely requires a modicum of backbone, to stand up to false accusations along those lines, on the part of Pro-Illegals fifth-columnists, who would have folks believe otherwise.

Fail.


----------



## B. Kidd

A great bill was introduced in congress six years ago....*H.R. 1868 - The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.  *
Of course, it went nowhere, but whaddya' expect, it's Congress, afterall.

Only Trump has the cojones to EO it so it gets to SCOTUS pronto, Tonto.

(You can thank me again, Donald, when you get elected.)

H.R.1868 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, a bill on OpenCongress


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Here is the proof for all of you doubters......never doubt Ann Coulter's assertions....

An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. 

Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011


----------



## JakeStarkey

Coulter's assertions would be like koshergrl's.  Some things just can't be right.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
Click to expand...



You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
Click to expand...


go read Ann Coulter's book _Adios America_ pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
Click to expand...

We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ask yourselves why the Hispanic vote has increased by 50% for the Dems in the last 15 years, far right.  You are making no progress, only losing ground.


----------



## g5000

Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
Click to expand...

we did....?  how did you disprove it....?

there is good reason to believe the numbers of your chart are wrong....in 2005 there was 'significant evidence' that the census undercounted the illegals by at least half.....meaning the number was closer to 20 million....


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
Click to expand...

The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.

Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade


----------



## JakeStarkey

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to because Coulter failed in her numbers.

Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade


----------



## g5000

So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.

HUGE difference.


----------



## B. Kidd

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book _Adios America_ pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
Click to expand...


The current FedCoats in power really have no way of knowing the exact number of illegals, and most likely really do not want to know. So, it is a logical assumption that it is nearer to 30 million, especially when one considers that they have no way of knowing or wanting to know those illegals who remain here on expired visas' through recent years. The number could even be higher than 30 million.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
Click to expand...


sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've got one quarter of Mexico's population here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Didn't we already expose your innumeracy on this?  Why do you tards continue to beg for more abuse?
> 
> "I didn't get embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book _Adios America_ pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current FedCoats in power really have no way of knowing the exact number of illegals, and most likely really do not want to know. So, it is a logical assumption that it is nearer to 30 million, especially when one considers that they have no way of knowing or wanting to know those illegals who remain here on expired visas' through recent years. The number could even be higher than 30 million.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, kidd.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
Click to expand...

Says who: a wacko bird?


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
Click to expand...

Here is the methodology used: Appendix C: Methodology

Please explain what makes it "totally unreliable".


Next, explain the methodology that makes the 30 million figure "totally reliable".

ETA more information: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0101/SWG_emigration_jensen.pdf


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade




How about that.
It stared going down after the fence was built in 2005
Think how much more it would go down if the whole thing was built and implemented.
Then enforce the laws so that they can't get jobs so easily.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JakeStarkey said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who: a wacko bird?
Click to expand...

and i bet you also think we have a steady rate of  .2% inflation too......


----------



## B. Kidd

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
Click to expand...



*Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
Therefore, you are outta control...........


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the methodology used: Appendix C: Methodology
> 
> Please explain what makes it "totally unreliable".
> 
> 
> Next, explain the methodology that makes the 30 million figure "totally reliable".
Click to expand...

don't you remember when Obama would not let even Congressmen into the illegals holding facilities....?  just what makes you think his Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics is true and correct....?  Not to mention that the Census Bureau counts are totally skewed because what illegal in his right mind is going to do one....?


----------



## g5000

B. Kidd said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
Click to expand...

Did you read Coulter's book?  I guess Coulter must be one of those don't know and don't really care people since it is she and her source who talk about their extrapolations, eh?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nothing like exposing your inner bigot!
> 
> 
> 
> It is not Bigotry, to insist that 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens be sent home, so as not to reward their trespassing, and so as to discourage future and still larger waves.
> 
> It merely requires a modicum of backbone, to stand up to false accusations along those lines, on the part of Pro-Illegals fifth-columnists, who would have folks believe otherwise.
> 
> Fail.
Click to expand...


The only fail is when you use terms like "locust plagues" to refer to Hispanics you are guaranteeing the failure of any GOP candidate to win the Whitehouse in 2016.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that.
> It stared going down after the fence was built in 2005
> Think how much more it would go down if the whole thing was built and implemented.
> Then enforce the laws so that they can't get jobs so easily.
Click to expand...

That's part of the solution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ScreamingEagle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who: a wacko bird?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and i bet you also think we have a steady rate of  .2% inflation too......
Click to expand...

What do you think it is?  Verifiable data, please.


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the methodology used: Appendix C: Methodology
> 
> Please explain what makes it "totally unreliable".
> 
> 
> Next, explain the methodology that makes the 30 million figure "totally reliable".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't you remember when Obama would not let even Congressmen into the illegals holding facilities....?  just what makes you think his Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics is true and correct....?  Not to mention that the Census Bureau counts are totally skewed because what illegal in his right mind is going to do one....?
Click to expand...

So  you can't find fault with the methodology, eh?

"Let's try this red herring."


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> Here is the proof for all of you doubters......never doubt Ann Coulter's assertions....
> 
> An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
> 
> Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011



That doesn't make them all illegal immigrants!


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
Click to expand...

You are a wacko bird.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
Click to expand...


Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!


----------



## B. Kidd

g5000 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read Coulter's book?  I guess Coulter must be one of those don't know and don't really care people since it is she and her source who talk about their extrapolations, eh?
Click to expand...


Never knew you were sooooo *PC!* (very unfashionable this election cycle.......I might add........).


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> ...The only fail is when you use terms like "locust plagues" to refer to Hispanics you are guaranteeing the failure of any GOP candidate to win the Whitehouse in 2016.


Nope.

Merely using the phrase '_plague of Locusts_' to describe waves of Illegal Aliens - their ethnicity is immaterial.

Actually, it's a great phrase, and metaphorically and entirely applicable, in this context.


----------



## g5000

Are all these posts meant to protect ScreamingEagle's embarrassment over his one-quarter mistake?

Let's hope he doesn't recycle it again!


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read Coulter's book?  I guess Coulter must be one of those don't know and don't really care people since it is she and her source who talk about their extrapolations, eh?
Click to expand...

yes i did read her book....

did you know that the Census tried to account for the illegals by adding 10 percent to their figures.....and where did they get hat 10 percent figure....from another survey of illegals...........it's downright funny.....


----------



## B. Kidd

JakeStarkey said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a wacko bird.
Click to expand...


That totally disarms my talking points...........


----------



## Derideo_Te

g5000 said:


> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.



Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.


----------



## g5000

B. Kidd said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Extrapolation *is a PC codeword for we don't know and really don't care..........it falls into the same category as a word like *Plausible Deniability*. Once again, if one controls the words, they control the debate in an attempt to control what people think.
> Therefore, you are outta control...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read Coulter's book?  I guess Coulter must be one of those don't know and don't really care people since it is she and her source who talk about their extrapolations, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never knew you were sooooo *PC!* (very unfashionable this election cycle.......I might add........).
Click to expand...

So you appear to be completely unaware it is Coulter who used the e word.  This is most amusing.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Merely 'most' of them.

Close enough for Gubmint work...


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is!  Again!  Wow!
> 
> First, you will have to prove there are 30 million illegals here.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Second, if one quarter of Mexico's population is here, then 120 million is 3/4 of the total.  Which means there would have to be 40 million here, dumbass.
> 
> See?  Your innumeracy gets exposed again!
> 
> "I wasn't embarrassed enough the last time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
Click to expand...


How ironic coming from someone gullible enough to swallow Coulter's disinformation,


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> Are all these posts meant to protect ScreamingEagle's embarrassment over his one-quarter mistake?
> 
> Let's hope he doesn't recycle it again!


you still have not given me bullet-proof proof of your assertion that i'm wrong.....in fact i am making mince-meat of your 'proof'....


----------



## JakeStarkey

kidd, you have gastric penguin mouth belching fart points.

You have no verifiable data.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> 
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the methodology used: Appendix C: Methodology
> 
> Please explain what makes it "totally unreliable".
> 
> 
> Next, explain the methodology that makes the 30 million figure "totally reliable".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't you remember when Obama would not let even Congressmen into the illegals holding facilities....?  just what makes you think his Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics is true and correct....?  Not to mention that the Census Bureau counts are totally skewed because what illegal in his right mind is going to do one....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So  you can't find fault with the methodology, eh?
> 
> "Let's try this red herring."
Click to expand...

can't you read....?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The only fail is when you use terms like "locust plagues" to refer to Hispanics you are guaranteeing the failure of any GOP candidate to win the Whitehouse in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Merely using the phrase '_plague of Locusts_' to describe waves of Illegal Aliens - their ethnicity is immaterial.
> 
> Actually, it's a great phrase, and metaphorically and entirely applicable, in this context.
Click to expand...


Exposing your bigotry by using demeaning terminology is what is costing you elections.


----------



## g5000

Derideo_Te said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
Click to expand...


True.  But ScreamingEagle specified that one quarter of Mexico's population is here and then said there were 30 million illegals here, with the clear implication all 30 million are Mexicans:



ScreamingEagle said:


> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....



I didn't feel like splitting hairs.  To these guys, they are all Mexicans.

"Brown skin = Mexican, right?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> kidd, you have gastric penguin mouth belching fart points.
> 
> You have no verifiable data.


 Eagle, yeah, you are wrong.  Flap away.


----------



## B. Kidd

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read Ann Coulter's book pages 72-75 and it will explain exactly how the real number is 30 million illegals....do you really think that the number has been stuck at 11 million for over a decade.....?
> 
> 
> 
> We already went through this.  Why do you do this to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we did....?  how did you disprove it....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 30 million figure is from an extrapolation from several years ago.  An extrapolation that did not come to fruition, my innumerate friend.
> 
> Unauthorized immigrant population stable for half a decade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry.....but your chart from Pew was based ON GOVERNMENT DATA.....in other words totally unreliable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ironic coming from someone gullible enough to swallow Coulter's disinformation,
Click to expand...


She was meticulous in footnoting her book.......you and your ilk got nuthin' in this thread!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Merely 'most' of them.
> 
> Close enough for Gubmint work...
Click to expand...


And once again you proudly display your ignorance.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
Click to expand...


Did you type this or not?
*How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.


----------



## B. Kidd

JakeStarkey said:


> kidd, you have gastric penguin mouth belching fart points.
> 
> You have no verifiable data.



Based on your comments, looks like you've lost this debate..........next....................


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

ScreamingEagle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
Click to expand...


To respond to your initial question of the OP, the seemingly obvious response is the non-citizen parent(s) have no "anchor right" whatsoever. To respond to your second question of deportation of the non-citizen parent(s), one would need to possess the wisdom of Solomon.

Figuratively, taking a sword to an innocent child to return half to its parents homeland and inter the other in the US to satisfy the irrational is out of the question. The child in question has birthright citizenship, so it boils down to one of three options that I see as logical, but their may be others that are better. I really don't know! This is a tough one for the son of a legal immigrant who gave up her Australian citizenship in 1952 to become a naturalized citizen.  

1. The citizen child remains in the US and the non-citizen parent(s) are deported when their case is adjudicated.
2. The citizen child remains with the parent(s) in the US being granted temporary legal alien status to also remain with the child with a path to citizenship for the parent(s).
3. The citizen child remain with the parent(s) in the US until the child reaches majority when the child can lawfully make his/her decision to stay in the US when the parents are deported or the child renounce their US citizenship and return to their parent(s) native country OR if the parent(s) obtain permanent resident alien status or US citizenship has been obtained, all can remain in the US.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the proof for all of you doubters......never doubt Ann Coulter's assertions....
> 
> An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
> 
> Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them all illegal immigrants!
Click to expand...

true.....but it proves that we have imported approx 1/4 of Mexico's population.....

as far a illegals go.....we have about 30 million......(which coincides with being 1/4 of Mexico's population).....true dat some of them are from other countries but Mexico provides the lion's share of them....


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
Click to expand...


In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.


----------



## Derideo_Te

ScreamingEagle said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the proof for all of you doubters......never doubt Ann Coulter's assertions....
> 
> An estimated 33.5 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2011, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
> 
> Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make them all illegal immigrants!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true.....but it proves that we have imported approx 1/4 of Mexico's population.....
> 
> as far a illegals go.....we have about 30 million......(which coincides with being 1/4 of Mexico's population).....true dat some of them are from other countries but Mexico provides the lion's share of them....
Click to expand...


You are glutton for being punished for your abject stupidity and ignorance, aren't you?


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
Click to expand...


I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.


----------



## B. Kidd

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
Click to expand...


I see you still fail to put your 'rightwing broad brush' away as the majority of the rightwing (Chamber of Commerce puppets), so far, has sold out America on the immigration issues.........except for Trump!


----------



## ScreamingEagle

ThoughtCrimes said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To respond to your initial question of the OP, the seemingly obvious response is the non-citizen parent(s) have no "anchor right" whatsoever. To respond to your second question of deportation of the non-citizen parent(s), one would need to possess the wisdom of Solomon.
> 
> Figuratively, taking a sword to an innocent child to return half to its parents homeland and inter the other in the US to satisfy the irrational is out of the question. The child in question has birthright citizenship, so it boils down to one of three options that I see as logical, but their may be others that are better. I really don't know! This is a tough one for the son of a legal immigrant who gave up her Australian citizenship in 1952 to become a naturalized citizen.
> 
> 1. The citizen child remains in the US and the non-citizen parent(s) are deported when their case is adjudicated.
> 2. The citizen child remains with the parent(s) in the US being granted temporary legal alien status to also remain with the child with a path to citizenship for the parent(s).
> 3. The citizen child remain with the parent(s) in the US until the child reaches majority when the child can lawfully make his/her decision to stay in the US when the parents are deported or the child renounce their US citizenship and return to their parent(s) native country OR if the parent(s) obtain permanent resident alien status or US citizenship has been obtained, all can remain in the US.
Click to expand...

deporting a child with his illegal parents should not be considered a bad thing.....the parents can then attempt to enter legally or the child can be raised with his parents and come to the U.S. when he is old enough....

letting them all stay is just short-circuiting the law...


----------



## NYcarbineer

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
Click to expand...


Sure you do, anonymous internet person.


----------



## peach174

NYcarbineer said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do, anonymous internet person.
Click to expand...


South East Arizona, large amounts of Legal American Hispanics.


----------



## g5000

Demographics of Immigrants in the United States Illegally - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
Click to expand...


Anecdotes are not credible.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

g5000 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  But ScreamingEagle specified that one quarter of Mexico's population is here and then said there were 30 million illegals here, with the clear implication all 30 million are Mexicans:
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> when the population of Mexico is 120 million and the number of illegals here is 30 million that equates to 1/4.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't feel like splitting hairs.  To these guys, they are all Mexicans.
> 
> "Brown skin = Mexican, right?"
Click to expand...

since the true numbers are impossible to nail down exactly.....as noted it's close enough for gubmint work.....

 why is Obama et al telling us the number is still att 11 million....?


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who talked about illegals(who can't vote) and making their children orphans.
> There are huge amounts of Hispanic Americans who are just as angry over illegals as any one else in this country is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
Click to expand...


Then you should stop using them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

peach174 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do, anonymous internet person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South East Arizona, large amounts of Legal American Hispanics.
Click to expand...


Are they good unicorn herders?


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> kidd, you have gastric penguin mouth belching fart points.
> 
> You have no verifiable data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your comments, looks like you've lost this debate..........next....................
Click to expand...

yes, you have lost it, glad you agree.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying about what I actually posted says volumes about you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
Click to expand...


Ironic coming from the person who just used them.


----------



## peach174

NYcarbineer said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you do, anonymous internet person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> South East Arizona, large amounts of Legal American Hispanics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they good unicorn herders?
Click to expand...


Talk about racist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Whether Trump becomes president (4% chance) is immaterial.

The LEO and the military would not carry out such an order.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

ScreamingEagle said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To respond to your initial question of the OP, the seemingly obvious response is the non-citizen parent(s) have no "anchor right" whatsoever. To respond to your second question of deportation of the non-citizen parent(s), one would need to possess the wisdom of Solomon.
> 
> Figuratively, taking a sword to an innocent child to return half to its parents homeland and inter the other in the US to satisfy the irrational is out of the question. The child in question has birthright citizenship, so it boils down to one of three options that I see as logical, but their may be others that are better. I really don't know! This is a tough one for the son of a legal immigrant who gave up her Australian citizenship in 1952 to become a naturalized citizen.
> 
> 1. The citizen child remains in the US and the non-citizen parent(s) are deported when their case is adjudicated.
> 2. The citizen child remains with the parent(s) in the US being granted temporary legal alien status to also remain with the child with a path to citizenship for the parent(s).
> 3. The citizen child remain with the parent(s) in the US until the child reaches majority when the child can lawfully make his/her decision to stay in the US when the parents are deported or the child renounce their US citizenship and return to their parent(s) native country OR if the parent(s) obtain permanent resident alien status or US citizenship has been obtained, all can remain in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> deporting a child with his illegal parents should not be considered a bad thing.....the parents can then attempt to enter legally or the child can be raised with his parents and come to the U.S. when he is old enough....
> 
> letting them all stay is just short-circuiting the law...
Click to expand...


Deporting a minor child with birthright citizenship with his parents is denying the child his Constitutional rights to due process provisions under Amendment V and possibly Amendment XIV under various circumstances. So that is not a legal option for infants or young children. I considered your solution and rejected it as unlawful under that rascally Constitution.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you type this or not?
> *How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?*
> Legal citizen Hispanics would not have their children turned into orphans, only illegals who would be deported would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
Click to expand...


Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"How does an 'anchor baby' legally anchor his illegal alien parents ?"

It doesn't.

That's why there's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' as persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, no other designation is applicable or appropriate.


----------



## B. Kidd

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
Click to expand...


Obviously, Dung_Te doesn't know many Hispanics personally...........


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no grasp whatsoever of how the Hispanic community views the extremist rightwing hatred towards them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
Click to expand...


Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in and around a huge amount of Hispanic's and they agree with not wanting illegals here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
Click to expand...


Believe what you want.
It does not make it correct.


----------



## B. Kidd

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "How does an 'anchor baby' legally anchor his illegal alien parents ?"
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> That's why there's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' as persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, no other designation is applicable or appropriate.



Your problem is, is that you dwell on what is, rather then what *could *and *should* be, under the 14th amendment. You lack vision as to what is good for America.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
Click to expand...


Even more irony from the gullible person who believes disinformation to be "correct".


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more irony from the gullible person who believes disinformation to be "correct".
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The only fail is when you use terms like "locust plagues" to refer to Hispanics you are guaranteeing the failure of any GOP candidate to win the Whitehouse in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Merely using the phrase '_plague of Locusts_' to describe waves of Illegal Aliens - their ethnicity is immaterial.
> 
> Actually, it's a great phrase, and metaphorically and entirely applicable, in this context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing your bigotry by using demeaning terminology is what is costing you elections.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Republican.

Merely an American who has had a bellyful of excuse-making and advocacy on behalf of Illegal Aliens and their Anchor Babies.

And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.

If they want us to speak well of them, they can stay on their own side of the goddamned border, and we will be nice to them again.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.



The person you see in your mirror.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as it turns out, about one ninth of Mexico's population is here.  Not one fourth.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Merely 'most' of them.
> 
> Close enough for Gubmint work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again you proudly display your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Are not most of the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon US soil, from Mexico?

Not the trend du jour, regarding the most recent arrivals, but the entire scope of the 12,000,000.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

Until then, you'll forgive me if I laugh at your silly allegations of 'ignorance'.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.

I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Are not most of the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon US soil, from Mexico?



No! Only about half of them are from Mexico as was posted earlier.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.
> 
> I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.
> 
> Next slide, please.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting to being a bigot.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotes are not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
Click to expand...


Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting! 

If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!


----------



## peach174

ThoughtCrimes said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop using them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
Click to expand...


You are the one in denial.
The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> Go away 'FakeJake'. And dwell in the your 'unexpected virtue of ignorance'. You probably liked the movie, 'Birdman', which sucks like you.


Trolling with no content by you reveals the hollowness of your nativist agenda.  The illegals are home; they will not be rounded up.  Your way is the no way.


----------



## B. Kidd

JakeStarkey said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away 'FakeJake'. And dwell in the your 'unexpected virtue of ignorance'. You probably liked the movie, 'Birdman', which sucks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling with no content by you reveals the hollowness of your nativist agenda.  The illegals are home; they will not be rounded up.  Your way is the no way.
Click to expand...


You started the name calling in this thread and you accuse me of trolling? Now I know how Trump feels......


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away *'FakeJake'. *And dwell in the your 'unexpected virtue of ignorance'. You probably liked the movie, 'Birdman', which sucks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling with no content by you reveals the hollowness of your nativist agenda.  The illegals are home; they will not be rounded up.  Your way is the no way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started the name calling in this thread and you accuse me of trolling? Now I know how Trump feels......
Click to expand...

You accuse me of what you did?  You are a troll, you are a nativist, and like most of your ilk, you whine when you get dished with what you handed out.  Live it, learn it, love it, because that is going to our relationship on the Board for the rest of your time here.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby.


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

peach174 said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the person who just used them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one in denial.
> The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.
Click to expand...


I live in Maricopa County, Peach! You are repeating something from the past. That blush is off the Rose now with voters finally seeing how the Sherriff has used his office for self promotion with the contempt charges he faced this Spring.

Have a read of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias. Sherriff Joe is caricatured in the last five lines!


----------



## Roadrunner

ScreamingEagle said:


> If an illegal alien woman has a baby in the U.S. (who is then considered to be a U.S. citizen) what exactly gives her the right to remain in the U.S. ?
> 
> None of the following mechanisms seem to bring in a parent legally....
> _
> There are four different mechanisms at work here, as my CIS colleague, Jon Feere, and I see it:_
> 
> _the most obvious, and the least numerically significant, is the right of a 21-year-old citizen to petition for immigrant status for a non-citizen parent. By definition, this cannot happen until at least 21 years have passed._
> _under some quite precise circumstances the presence of a U.S.-born child of an illegal alien, or a green card holder in trouble with the law, can cause a judge to grant legal status to an alien who would not get it otherwise._
> _much more important is the hidden, undocumented, and uncounted influence of the presence of a U.S.-citizen child in the household of an illegal alien; officials are less likely to deport the parent of such a child than they are to deport an alien who is otherwise similar, but childless._
> _the fourth mechanism may be more important than all the rest, and is the least susceptible to counting. This is the perception in the minds of the illegal alien parents, usually mothers, that somehow the presence of a U.S.-born baby will be helpful to parents in immigration proceedings. That thought process probably works, in most instances, without any detailed knowledge of the three mechanisms noted above._
> _From a broader policy point of view the presence of the U.S.-citizen child of an illegal alien is part of the whole business of chain migration, a worrisome process to many of us._
> 
> Just How Does an Anchor Baby Anchor the Illegal Alien Parent?



They are anchored by liberal guilt and "respect for the sanctity of the family unit".


----------



## Roadrunner

ScreamingEagle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no 'right' for that.....
Click to expand...

Bringing in pregnant Chinese women is an industry.

Far more insidious than the Hispanic invasion.


----------



## Roadrunner

g5000 said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
Click to expand...

No, the courts have never ruled on the "subject to its jurisdiction" part.

An illegal has not subjected himself to the jurisdiction of US, and therefore, citizenship for their kids could be ruled unconstitutional.

Hell, this court has proved the court can rule anything, even if it has to rewrite the dictionary.


----------



## B. Kidd

JakeStarkey said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away *'FakeJake'. *And dwell in the your 'unexpected virtue of ignorance'. You probably liked the movie, 'Birdman', which sucks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling with no content by you reveals the hollowness of your nativist agenda.  The illegals are home; they will not be rounded up.  Your way is the no way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started the name calling in this thread and you accuse me of trolling? Now I know how Trump feels......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You accuse me of what you did?  You are a troll, you are a nativist, and like most of your ilk, you whine when you get dished with what you handed out.  Live it, learn it, love it, because that is going to our relationship on the Board for the rest of your time here.
> 
> There is no such thing as an anchor baby.
Click to expand...


Page 9 this thread, your post #82. I hadn't called you a name prior to that. You lie just like your Dear Leader Obama. I invite the threatened relationship you mentioned cause you are the thinnest skinned maggot infesting this board.


----------



## peach174

ThoughtCrimes said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one in denial.
> The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Maricopa County, Peach! You are repeating something from the past. That blush is off the Rose now with voters finally seeing how the Sherriff has used his office for self promotion with the contempt charges he faced this Spring.
> 
> Have a read of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias. Sherriff Joe is caricatured in the last five lines!
Click to expand...



He won again just three years ago.
Last 5 lines;
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.' 

Not even close.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are not most of the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens now present upon US soil, from Mexico?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! Only about half of them are from Mexico as was posted earlier.
Click to expand...

The largest individual segment... close enough for Gubmint work...


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.
> 
> I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting to being a bigot.
Click to expand...




Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.
> 
> I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting to being a bigot.
Click to expand...

Nope.

I admit to being an American Citizen, loyal to my country and its people, rather than foreigners, and refusing to advocate for tolerance of the 12,000,000 Invaders now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent, and refusing to advocate for the continuation of the extending of 14th Amendment rights to the American-born offspring of Illegal Aliens, born while their parents were out-of-compliance with US Immigration Law. Oh, and also refusing to be Politically Correct, and to refrain from labeling them with disdain.

But what I am or am not doesn't matter in the slightest.

What DOES matter is that - after years of smug assurance that they were going to get in, after all - that Illegal Aliens may now be in for a very rough time.

Excellent.


----------



## Darkwind

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
Click to expand...

And you are going to be sure to tell that lie that they are being treated badly, aren't you?


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

peach174 said:


> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one in denial.
> The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Maricopa County, Peach! You are repeating something from the past. That blush is off the Rose now with voters finally seeing how the Sherriff has used his office for self promotion with the contempt charges he faced this Spring.
> 
> Have a read of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias. Sherriff Joe is caricatured in the last five lines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He won again just three years ago.
> Last 5 lines;
> "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
> Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
> Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
> Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
> The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...


Yeah, three years ago! That was the point as compared to the charges he faced this Spring!

No appreciation for poetry that portrays the variability of real life, eh? Of fortunes gained and horizons lost? Oh well, some never can locate those deeper caverns within!


----------



## peach174

ThoughtCrimes said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference when telling the truth, but you are the one believing the lies of the media and the left.
> Americans Of Hispanic Descent Speaking Out Against Illegal Immigration : Diggers Realm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that the person who imagines that anecdotes are credible also believes the same thing about blogs full  of disinformation too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one in denial.
> The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Maricopa County, Peach! You are repeating something from the past. That blush is off the Rose now with voters finally seeing how the Sherriff has used his office for self promotion with the contempt charges he faced this Spring.
> 
> Have a read of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias. Sherriff Joe is caricatured in the last five lines!
Click to expand...



Do you have any news on his hearing that was suppose to be on Aug.14th 2015?


----------



## peach174

ThoughtCrimes said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThoughtCrimes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> It does not make it correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does citing biased BS from 5 years ago. I live in the Phoenix area now and I know that Diggers Realm was/is a clarion for the fascist faithful. You know, the Papers Please pushing, Sheriff Joe worshipping, psycho fascist, rabid racist, Tea Partying types infesting the region. You may as well read the National Inquirer for valid and trustworthy reporting!
> 
> If that offends thee, I'm sorry, for sure...really, really!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one in denial.
> The voters love Joe and that is why he has been continually re-elected for over 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Maricopa County, Peach! You are repeating something from the past. That blush is off the Rose now with voters finally seeing how the Sherriff has used his office for self promotion with the contempt charges he faced this Spring.
> 
> Have a read of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias. Sherriff Joe is caricatured in the last five lines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He won again just three years ago.
> Last 5 lines;
> "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
> Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
> Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
> Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
> The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, three years ago! That was the point as compared to the charges he faced this Spring!
> 
> No appreciation for poetry that portrays the variability of real life, eh?* Of fortunes gained and horizons lost?* Oh well, some never can locate those deeper caverns within!
Click to expand...



How many court trials in the last 23 years?
Not one has stuck. 
It depends on how you look at it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"They are anchored by liberal guilt and lrespect for the sanctity of the family unit'" is half right.  The other part that is right is that good Americans are armored against the hate of the nativists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

B. Kidd said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away *'FakeJake'. *And dwell in the your 'unexpected virtue of ignorance'. You probably liked the movie, 'Birdman', which sucks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling with no content by you reveals the hollowness of your nativist agenda.  The illegals are home; they will not be rounded up.  Your way is the no way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started the name calling in this thread and you accuse me of trolling? Now I know how Trump feels......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You accuse me of what you did?  You are a troll, you are a nativist, and like most of your ilk, you whine when you get dished with what you handed out.  Live it, learn it, love it, because that is going to our relationship on the Board for the rest of your time here.
> 
> There is no such thing as an anchor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Page 9 this thread, your post #82. I hadn't called you a name prior to that. You lie just like your Dear Leader Obama. I invite the threatened relationship you mentioned cause you are the thinnest skinned maggot infesting this board.
Click to expand...

So you continue to lie.  I have no trouble dealing with the ilk of you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"And you are going to be sure to tell that lie that they are being treated badly" is a lie itself.  Look at the nativists on the Board and their lies.


----------



## Kondor3

JakeStarkey said:


> "...good Americans are armored against the hate of the nativists."


Translation: "_Grab your ankles, bend over, and take it (waves of millions of invaders) like a man, or you're a racist and a bigot and hateful_."

Response: "_Horseshit_"


----------



## g5000

ScreamingEagle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
Click to expand...

You're way off.

It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies have no right to citizenship when both parents are illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
Click to expand...


Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
They were not here illegally.
The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are citizens, period.
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
Click to expand...

What law are they breaking?

US law.

Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.

By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.

As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.

But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.

Same for the children of illegals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Constitution applies to everyone living under US jurisdiction in the states.  Immutable.  No anchor babies exist.


----------



## g5000

There isn't much difference between the bigots targeting Mexicans today and the bigots who targeted the Chinese 120 years ago.


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how liberals can 'legislate' American law in a footnote.....but then again that's how they 'legislated' abortion rights, gay marriage rights, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
Click to expand...



I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> 
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
Click to expand...

No, I did not ignore it.

Repeating the same bullshit which I just debunked doesn't make it true.

Illegals are under our jurisdiction, just like Wong Kim Ark's parents were  under our jurisdiction.  That's the similarity, and the only thing that matters.

Children born to parents under our jurisdiction are citizens, period.


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> 
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not ignore it.
> 
> Repeating the same bullshit which I just debunked doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


You did not debunk anything.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I did not ignore it.
> 
> Repeating the same bullshit which I just debunked doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not debunk anything.
Click to expand...

I did.  You just can't accept it.

Illegals are under our jurisdiction, just like Wong Kim Ark's parents were under our jurisdiction. That's the similarity, and the only thing that matters under the 14th amendment.

Children born to parents under our jurisdiction are citizens, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not a footnote.  The language is quite plain.
> 
> They are citizens, period.
> 
> 
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
Click to expand...

Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.... it was Justice Brennan who wrote a footnote to a case in 1982 about 'jurisdiction'....creating the insane immigration policy on anchor babies....
> 
> 
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
Click to expand...



It is very much so material.


----------



## g5000

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.




His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
Big difference.

From the court case itself.
"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."
They were here legally.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
Click to expand...


Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.

You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.



You lose, dude.  Sorry.


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


I am not a dude.
It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're way off.
> 
> It was _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ in 1898 which established that everyone born in the US is a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
Click to expand...

Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dude.
> It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Illegals in this country thus are subject to our laws.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dude.
> It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Which means they are under our jurisdiction.  Babe.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> 
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.
Click to expand...


There is also the word Aliens in there as well as diplomats.
Then the same should apply to this administration who are ignoring the immigration laws and are having to fend off the law suits by ICE agents.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I Got You Babe


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dude.
> It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals in this country thus are subject to our laws.
Click to expand...

 
Which is why they are called illegal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also the word Aliens in there as well as diplomats.
> Then the same should apply to this administration who are ignoring the immigration laws and are having to fend off the law suits by ICE agents.
Click to expand...

Well.  Golly.  Gee.

Email Congress.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also the word Aliens in there as well as diplomats.
> Then the same should apply to this administration who are ignoring the immigration laws and are having to fend off the law suits by ICE agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well.  Golly.  Gee.
> 
> Email Congress.
Click to expand...



Why?
Neither party is doing anything about it.
Meanwhile the cost of illegals will continue to rise.
Hell yeah lets just keep doing the same thing and when this country can no longer sustain itself, then what?
I would rather we get control of our spending.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, something needs to be done, But you way can't be done.

1.  Secure the border.
2.  Punish business and its people and the dividends of those companies hiring illegals.
3.  Begin an immigrant path to legitimacy.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, something needs to be done, But you way can't be done.
> 
> 1.  Secure the border.
> 2.  Punish business and its people and the dividends of those companies hiring illegals.
> 3.  Begin an immigrant path to legitimacy.



You way? 
What you just listed is my way, it's some on the left that wants open borders.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, something needs to be done, But you way can't be done.
> 
> 1.  Secure the border.
> 2.  Punish business and its people and the dividends of those companies hiring illegals.
> 3.  Begin an immigrant path to legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You way?
> What you just listed is my way, it's some on the left that wants open borders.
Click to expand...

I am glad I taught you something.

No one in his right mind wants open borders.  We might have revolutionary socialists or far right or libertarian wacks crossing into our country.


----------



## Lilah

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because his parents were here legally under the Domicile Law under the Jurisdiction of California laws at that time.
> They were not here illegally.
> The 14th Amendment is not for Alien law breakers.
> 
> 
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.
Click to expand...


The *Congress*, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this *Constitution*, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as ...


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, something needs to be done, But you way can't be done.
> 
> 1.  Secure the border.
> 2.  Punish business and its people and the dividends of those companies hiring illegals.
> 3.  Begin an immigrant path to legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You way?
> What you just listed is my way, it's some on the left that wants open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am glad I taught you something.
> 
> No one in his right mind wants open borders.  We might have revolutionary socialists or far right or libertarian wacks crossing into our country.
Click to expand...


You taught nothing.
I had the same ideology since the 1970's when I became an adult and old enough to vote.
Conservative, wanting our Government to be physically responsible and able to sustain the programs that have been passed without taking more that half of my paycheck and getting rid of the waste, fraud and abuse.


----------



## Unkotare

Roadrunner said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump will not issue an EO because he knows LEO would not obey it.
> 
> Congress will never pass such a law.
> 
> A minor citizen has every right to expect the government to ensure that is parents are permitted to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no 'right' for that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bringing in pregnant Chinese women is an industry.
> 
> Far more insidious than the Hispanic invasion.
Click to expand...



Why "more"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lilah said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law are they breaking?
> 
> US law.
> 
> Ergo, illegals are under our jurisdiction.  Ergo, their children born here are citizens.  Simple as that.
> 
> By the way, did you read the case?  Wong Kim Ark's parents weren't allowed to become citizens due to bigoted laws in the US at the time which excluded Chinese from attaining citizenship.
> 
> As the child of parents of an excluded race, Wong Kim Ark was Chinese, and it was believed by your bigoted political ancesters the exclusion applied to him, too.
> 
> But thanks to the 14th amendment, it didn't.
> 
> Same for the children of illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored that his parents were here legally and not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immaterial.  Children born here, except for those of diplomatic parents, are citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is very much so material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They are citizens, and the process can only be undone by an amendment or by SCOTUS, not the president or the congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *Congress*, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this *Constitution*, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as ...
Click to expand...

Exactly, by amendment.  Thank you.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.
> 
> I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting to being a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is utilizing demeaning terminology as a mechanism for expressing extreme contempt and disdain for those invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person you see in your mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, absolutely... guilty as charged... I use demeaning terminology directed against Illegal Aliens, as a measure of my contempt and disdain for them.
> 
> I will "make nice" about them again, once they return to their own side of the border.
> 
> Next slide, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting to being a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I admit to being an American Citizen, loyal to my country and its people, rather than foreigners, and refusing to advocate for tolerance of the 12,000,000 Invaders now present upon United States soil without our express prior consent, and refusing to advocate for the continuation of the extending of 14th Amendment rights to the American-born offspring of Illegal Aliens, born while their parents were out-of-compliance with US Immigration Law. Oh, and also refusing to be Politically Correct, and to refrain from labeling them with disdain.
> 
> But what I am or am not doesn't matter in the slightest.
> 
> What DOES matter is that - after years of smug assurance that they were going to get in, after all - that Illegal Aliens may now be in for a very rough time.
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...


Aren't you a Libertarian?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Darkwind said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't vote because they are here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions of Hispanic Americans who have the same voting rights that you do. They have become large enough to make the difference between winning and losing an election.
> 
> Your choice if you want to treat them badly and lose elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are going to be sure to tell that lie that they are being treated badly, aren't you?
Click to expand...


I don't have to tell them anything at all.

They just have to hear the lies T-Rump and the rest of the extremist rightwingers are telling about Hispanics.


----------



## g5000

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship.  There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.
> 
> When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.
> 
> Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.
> 
> Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.
> 
> They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898.  The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction.  Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dude.
> It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals in this country thus are subject to our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why they are called illegal.
Click to expand...


You can't be illegal if you aren't under our jurisdiction.

So are they, or are they not, babe?


----------



## peach174

g5000 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His parents were not breaking the laws at that time and they were here legally.
> Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That makes no difference.  All that matters is whether or not the parents are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> You are going to have to prove illegals are not under US jurisdiction.  And if they are not under US jurisdiction, then you will have to admit they are not breaking our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> You lose, dude.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a dude.
> It means that they are breaking the immigration laws of the States and the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals in this country thus are subject to our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why they are called illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be illegal if you aren't under our jurisdiction.
> 
> So are they, or are they not, babe?
Click to expand...



We have laws for legally coming into this country, you break them then you are illegally here and it should apply to their children that are born here, just like the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers and we have the right to have these different opinions until it is taken up with the Supreme Court.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have the right to any opinion.

And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.



Not of illegal citizens.
SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
Click to expand...



The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
Click to expand...


The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
Click to expand...

By "fail" you mean the republic of the generations of the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold war  has faded away and changed.

Yes.  That is not failure.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
Click to expand...


LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
Click to expand...


What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By "fail" you mean the republic of the generations of the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold war  has faded away and changed.
> 
> Yes.  That is not failure.
Click to expand...


No I mean continuing with the polices of more unfunded government which will someday outsource our ability to pay the accumulated debt.


----------



## Kondor3

Derideo_Te said:


> ...Aren't you a Libertarian?


Nope. But what _*I*_ am doesn't matter. What *DOES* matter is striking while the iron is hot, to beat back this 12,000,000 -strong invasion... and that iron is, indeed, getting hot.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
Click to expand...

 
What makes you believe that illegals are?


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to any opinion.
> 
> And, right now, iaw SCOTUS, the children are citizens, and that's the end of it for now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By "fail" you mean the republic of the generations of the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold war  has faded away and changed.
> 
> Yes.  That is not failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean continuing with the polices of more unfunded government which will someday outsource our ability to pay the accumulated debt.
Click to expand...

That is a problem, even though Dickless Cheney says deficits don't matter.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
Click to expand...


The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.

How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?

Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded. 

Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.


----------



## peach174

JakeStarkey said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not of illegal citizens.
> SCOTUS has not ruled on that at all yet.
> I have the right to take the same side as one of the Congressmen who helped to write the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By "fail" you mean the republic of the generations of the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold war  has faded away and changed.
> 
> Yes.  That is not failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean continuing with the polices of more unfunded government which will someday outsource our ability to pay the accumulated debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, even though Dickless Cheney says deficits don't matter.
Click to expand...


The deficit is not the debt.
Tackling the deficit does nothing to get rid of the Debt.


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
Click to expand...



South Americans as well as many other illegals from many other countries are coming in from Mexico.


----------



## Slyhunter

JakeStarkey said:


> Some would argue that.
> 
> The proper method would be to give her legitimate status as a temporary resident in America.


aha that's how anchor babies work.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you do, and you will fail.  Go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By "fail" you mean the republic of the generations of the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold war  has faded away and changed.
> 
> Yes.  That is not failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean continuing with the polices of more unfunded government which will someday outsource our ability to pay the accumulated debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a problem, even though Dickless Cheney says deficits don't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deficit is not the debt.  Tackling the deficit does nothing to get rid of the Debt.
Click to expand...

  Neither matter in a growing economy, and the fact the GOP won't work with the Dems to make the economy grow is damning


----------



## JakeStarkey

Slyhunter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some would argue that.
> 
> The proper method would be to give her legitimate status as a temporary resident in America.
> 
> 
> 
> aha that's how anchor babies work.
Click to expand...

No, the baby is a citizen with an immigrant mother.  That's how the system works.


----------



## Derideo_Te

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> South Americans as well as many other illegals from many other countries are coming in from Mexico.
Click to expand...


So Poles go all the way to Mexico just to enter the US?


----------



## peach174

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> South Americans as well as many other illegals from many other countries are coming in from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Poles go all the way to Mexico just to enter the US?
Click to expand...



North and South Poles go through the center.


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> South Americans as well as many other illegals from many other countries are coming in from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Poles go all the way to Mexico just to enter the US?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> North and South Poles go through the center.
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation will fail if we keep going the way we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
Click to expand...


The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nation was founded by immigrants. They all become Americans just as these children are growing up to be Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.
Click to expand...


Thank you for tacitly admitting that building this wall will be a waste of time and money because they will simply find another way to get here.


----------



## Unkotare

When doing his 'bit' about a wall, trump said something about "and you know that wall sure as heck worked" when talking about The Great Wall of China. 


Only it didn't.


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LEAGAL immigrants, not open borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for tacitly admitting that building this wall will be a waste of time and money because they will simply find another way to get here.
Click to expand...


Really how?   If we remove all of the incentive to remain here and continue to come here coupled with the wall we would end illegal immigration as we know it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.

That will end it right there.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that only legal immigrants have become Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for tacitly admitting that building this wall will be a waste of time and money because they will simply find another way to get here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really how?   If we remove all of the incentive to remain here and continue to come here coupled with the wall we would end illegal immigration as we know it.
Click to expand...


So your "plan" is to eliminate the American Dream entirely for everyone, including all US citizens?

How exactly are you going to make that happen?


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.



Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that illegals are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for tacitly admitting that building this wall will be a waste of time and money because they will simply find another way to get here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really how?   If we remove all of the incentive to remain here and continue to come here coupled with the wall we would end illegal immigration as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your "plan" is to eliminate the American Dream entirely for everyone, including all US citizens?
> 
> How exactly are you going to make that happen?
Click to expand...


WTH are you talking about?   Where did I say I have a problem with "legal" immigration.  You do know the difference between legal and illegal, don't you?   Who is ending the dream for U.S. citizens?   We need to change birthright citizenship so that children of illegals aliens are not deemed citizens anymore.   It would only be from the point forward that the new law is passed, not retroactive.    They don't deserve the American dream just because their parents managed to violate our immigration laws.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has 5,525 miles of *border* with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime *border* includes 95,000 miles of shoreline.
> 
> How much are you willing to pay in taxes to patrol ever yard of the borders of this nation?
> 
> Plenty of people immigrate to this nation illegally from all over the world and their children become citizens. It has been happening since this nation was founded.
> 
> Get back to us when you have a feasible and cost effective means to patrol 100,000 miles of borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of building the wall (and it would only need to be built along 700 miles of our most porous border) is miniscule when comparing it to the billions in tax dollars that illegals cost us annually now.    A wall is a one time expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for tacitly admitting that building this wall will be a waste of time and money because they will simply find another way to get here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really how?   If we remove all of the incentive to remain here and continue to come here coupled with the wall we would end illegal immigration as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your "plan" is to eliminate the American Dream entirely for everyone, including all US citizens?
> 
> How exactly are you going to make that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Where did I say I have a problem with "legal" immigration.  You do know the difference between legal and illegal, don't you?   Who is ending the dream for U.S. citizens?   We need to change birthright citizenship so that children of illegals aliens are not deemed citizens anymore.   It would only be from the point forward that the new law is passed, not retroactive.
Click to expand...


So you don't actually have any feasible plan to do as you suggested.

Got it!

Have a nice day!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
Click to expand...

Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.
Click to expand...


Nope! There will always be some loophole. The nature of corporations is to push the envelope. They will find a way around it.


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope! There will always be some loophole. The nature of corporations is to push the envelope. They will find a way around it.
Click to expand...


We'll see about that.   Something tells me you want the status quo to continue so you claim all kinds of reasons that we can't end illegal immigration.  Either you hire them yourself, are a bleeding heart liberal or have ethnic ties to illegal aliens.   Which is it?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope! There will always be some loophole. The nature of corporations is to push the envelope. They will find a way around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see about that.   Something tells me you want the status quo to continue so you put all kinds of reasons that we can't end illegal immigration.  Either you hire them yourself, are a bleeding heart liberal or have ethnic ties to illegal aliens.   Which is it?
Click to expand...


When you come up with a viable and feasible alternative I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say.

But so far you have nada!

The Senate bill is the only thing that comes even remotely close to that to date.

Too bad you never passed that when you had the chance. Now you are just handing the Hispanic vote to the Dems on a silver platter.


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope! There will always be some loophole. The nature of corporations is to push the envelope. They will find a way around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see about that.   Something tells me you want the status quo to continue so you put all kinds of reasons that we can't end illegal immigration.  Either you hire them yourself, are a bleeding heart liberal or have ethnic ties to illegal aliens.   Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you come up with a viable and feasible alternative I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say.
> 
> But so far you have nada!
> 
> The Senate bill is the only thing that comes even remotely close to that to date.
> 
> Too bad you never passed that when you had the chance. Now you are just handing the Hispanic vote to the Dems on a silver platter.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see so in order to gain the Hispanic vote one has to thumb their noses at our immigration laws for them?   Are they special?   Sounds like racism to me.    The Senate bill was amnesty and that will just encourage more illegal immigration.   Never reward lawbreakers.  The House GOP just introduced a bill for e-verify and ending birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal aliens.  Remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and they will leave on their own and it will also be a  deterrant for more to come.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact is simple: the future of Aerica needs our immigrants more than those who cling to the past. We reform the system.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create an environment that hurts businesses far more to hire illegals than not.
> 
> That will end it right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you imprison CEO's if any illegal is in their employment, with or without their knowledge. And there is no way to enforce something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confiscate the dividents at twice the earnings.  It will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope! There will always be some loophole. The nature of corporations is to push the envelope. They will find a way around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see about that.   Something tells me you want the status quo to continue so you claim all kinds of reasons that we can't end illegal immigration.  Either you hire them yourself, are a bleeding heart liberal or have ethnic ties to illegal aliens.   Which is it?
Click to expand...




Old gloryhole shows his contempt for logic yet again.


----------



## Oldglory1

Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.



 proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
Click to expand...




Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
Click to expand...


Obama Immigration Orders Said to Include Parents of Citizens

Obama to spare 5M illegal immigrants from deportation

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plan-sh...lion-immigrants-deportation-ny-174708862.html


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Immigration Orders Said to Include Parents of Citizens
> 
> Obama to spare 5M illegal immigrants from deportation
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plan-sh...lion-immigrants-deportation-ny-174708862.html
Click to expand...


All of those links only refer to a DEFERMENT of deportation action.

Doesn't mean that they won't be deported eventually. Only that the process to do so has been deferred. 

All that your GOP Congress has to do is pass an Immigration bill to take care of the problem.

What is stopping them?


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Immigration Orders Said to Include Parents of Citizens
> 
> Obama to spare 5M illegal immigrants from deportation
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plan-sh...lion-immigrants-deportation-ny-174708862.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of those links only refer to a DEFERMENT of deportation action.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they won't be deported eventually. Only that the process to do so has been deferred.
> 
> All that your GOP Congress has to do is pass an Immigration bill to take care of the problem.
> 
> What is stopping them?
Click to expand...


Regardless, Obama is allowing them to stay at least for now just because they have U.S born kids, therefore they were able to anchor themselves at least temporarily.   The House GOP has just introduced legislation for e-verify and ending birthright citizenship for their kids.   Think the Democrats will sign it?    What steps have the Democrats taken to end illegal immigration?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Immigration Orders Said to Include Parents of Citizens
> 
> Obama to spare 5M illegal immigrants from deportation
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plan-sh...lion-immigrants-deportation-ny-174708862.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of those links only refer to a DEFERMENT of deportation action.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they won't be deported eventually. Only that the process to do so has been deferred.
> 
> All that your GOP Congress has to do is pass an Immigration bill to take care of the problem.
> 
> What is stopping them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, Obama is allowing them to stay at least for now just because they have U.S born kids, therefore they were able to anchor themselves at least temporarily.   The House GOP has just introduced legislation for e-verify and ending birthright citizenship for their kids.   Think the Democrats will sign it?    What steps have the Democrats taken to end illegal immigration?
Click to expand...


Dems passed the bipartisan Immigration Reform Act in the Senate. 

Senate passes immigration bill

The Senate on Thursday passed the most monumental overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a generation, which would clear the way for millions of undocumented residents to have a chance at citizenship, attract workers from all over the world and devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The vote was 68-32. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all Democrats in favor. Thursday’s vote now puts the onus of immigration reform on the Republican-led House, where leaders have been resistant to the Senate legislation.


“The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country, it’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the so-called Gang of Eight. “The bill has generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the House to ignore.

( Also on POLITICO: Republicans who voted for the bill)

The bill was a product of not only weeks of floor debate and committee rewrites, but months of private negotiations by the Gang of Eight — the group of four Democrats and four Republicans — to produce legislation that would give the Senate a shot at passing immigration reform, something it was unable to do just six years ago.​

Read more: Senate passes immigration bill


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has allowed 5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids to remain here by EO.  So yes, having an anchor baby does anchor illegals to our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proving that there are "5 million parents here illegally with U.S. born kids".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Immigration Orders Said to Include Parents of Citizens
> 
> Obama to spare 5M illegal immigrants from deportation
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plan-sh...lion-immigrants-deportation-ny-174708862.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of those links only refer to a DEFERMENT of deportation action.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they won't be deported eventually. Only that the process to do so has been deferred.
> 
> All that your GOP Congress has to do is pass an Immigration bill to take care of the problem.
> 
> What is stopping them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, Obama is allowing them to stay at least for now just because they have U.S born kids, therefore they were able to anchor themselves at least temporarily.   The House GOP has just introduced legislation for e-verify and ending birthright citizenship for their kids.   Think the Democrats will sign it?    What steps have the Democrats taken to end illegal immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dems passed the bipartisan Immigration Reform Act in the Senate.
> 
> Senate passes immigration bill
> 
> The Senate on Thursday passed the most monumental overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a generation, which would clear the way for millions of undocumented residents to have a chance at citizenship, attract workers from all over the world and devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> The vote was 68-32. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all Democrats in favor. Thursday’s vote now puts the onus of immigration reform on the Republican-led House, where leaders have been resistant to the Senate legislation.
> 
> 
> “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country, it’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the so-called Gang of Eight. “The bill has generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the House to ignore.
> 
> ( Also on POLITICO: Republicans who voted for the bill)
> 
> The bill was a product of not only weeks of floor debate and committee rewrites, but months of private negotiations by the Gang of Eight — the group of four Democrats and four Republicans — to produce legislation that would give the Senate a shot at passing immigration reform, something it was unable to do just six years ago.​
> 
> Read more: Senate passes immigration bill
Click to expand...


This so wrong on so many levels.   Undocumented residents?  LOL!


----------



## LilOlLady

Derideo_Te said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no such thing as an anchor baby, only citizenship, the citizen has the right to stay in America.  The government has no right to deport such a citizen because the parents are illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> IF the child is actually a U.S. citizen.....then he has the right to stay.....but his mother does NOT.....she should be deported but should/would she just leave her baby behind...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dilemma that T-Rump wants to address by illegally deporting American citizens who are minors because their parents are illegal immigrants.
> 
> The INS should determine if the child has a parent who is gainfully employed and then provide them with a work visa and an application for residence.
> 
> That is called a path to citizenship and no one on the extremist rightwing wants that to happen even though these illegal immigrants are gainfully employed and will pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about an orphanage set up for 'anchor babies' if the illegal alien parents want to leave him behind when they are deported back to their own country.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly is that going to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Hispanic voters when you propose turning their children into orphans?
Click to expand...


We do not recommend euthanizing the parents, just evicting them with their children. They should not be allowed to abandon their children and if so should be charged with child abandonment and never allowed back in the country. This is what would happen to me if I abandon my kids. I worked my ass of to take care of my kids and they should do the same without my help  and the help of our government.


----------

