If you support Trump ending Birthright Citizenship via executive order you're a hypocrite.

[easyt65]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist. For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so.

If one party defiantly declares they are right, they know better, people who disagree with them are wrong, and declare Obama did nothing wrong, that a President CAN legally alter / impose his own Immigration edict who are we to argue with the Democrats?

Is someone FROM THE LEFT finally admitting that Obama bypassing Congress to create his own Dreamer edict and impose it as 'the law of the land' was WRONG....that it was ILLEGAL for him to do so and that every judge that has tried to legislate from the bench and block it from being struck down has been wrong to do so?

If this is not the case, if they are still declaring that a President has every right to do so then that also applies to the current President.

OF COURSE liberal extremists / butt-hurt Trump-hating snowflakes will NEVER admit that Obama ADMITTEDLY violated both the Constitution and Rule of Law...while they continue to justify Barry's doing so at the same time they argue the very same non-existent powers that allowed Barry to do so do not apply to President Trump.

I agree with you - I oppose Birthright citizenship, and I oppose criminal politicians violating the Constitution and Rule of Law to impose their own ideology / beliefs on Americans illegally. You're absolutely right - just because Barry DID do does not mean Trump can....

...but snowflakes are once again TRIGGERED by what President Trump has SAID, no tby anything he had actually DONE

The FACT is Barak Obama admittedly violated the Constitution...President Trump has only TALKED about doing so, initiating DISCUSSION about the possible change in the Constitution to eliminate Birthright Citizenship.

According to snowflakes, Barry can actively VIOLATE the Constitution and not even be verbally rebuked for doing so while President Trump should be Impeached for just TALKING about what Barry actually did.

Snowflakes need to make a decision and stick to it - either what Barry did was illegal, there is no official Dream Act, and Trump can't legally impose his will through EO as Barry did...OR what Barry did was legal and President Trump has every right to follow suit and do the same thing. If illegal, get rid of the Dream Act....if it is illegal snowflakes need to STFU and let President Trump exercise the same EO authority Obama did.

(BTW, again, I agree with you - neither is legal, and I oppose Birthright Citizenship...at the same time I find it amusing that white European 'illegals', descendants of slaves brought here, and south American-descendant Latinos are arguing and complaining about Illegals / Illegal immigration in this country......welcome to my world!

lol

 

[percysunshine]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Soo...Congress has no balls.

Not much argument with that.

 

[sparky]

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

thankfully, it takes more than that....

Baron's got that dubious look>>>>

What adolescent boy doesn't?

Melaina birthed Barron here not yet being a citizen

.but snowflakes are once again TRIGGERED by what President Trump has SAID, no tby anything he had actually DONE

Yes there's a world of Trump cheerleaders confused about what he said, and actuallty acomplished Easy

He is very good at taking credit for what has not occured

'Snowflakes' are very good at believing him

 

[Faun]

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

thankfully, it takes more than that....

Baron's got that dubious look>>>>

What adolescent boy doesn't?

Melaina birthed Barron here not yet being a citizen

.but snowflakes are once again TRIGGERED by what President Trump has SAID, no tby anything he had actually DONE

Yes there's a world of Trump cheerleaders confused about what he said, and actuallty acomplished Easy

He is very good at taking credit for what has not occured

'Snowflakes' are very good at believing him

Not only Melanie; Ivana too.

 

[sparky]

lol....i guess it's ok to screw an immigrant....

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

 

[Faun]

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

 

[Faun]

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

You just did. The words, “or those,” do not appear there in the original quote. You just admitted the right reads it wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

You just did. The word, “those,” does not appear there in the original quote. You just admitted the right reads it wrong.

No, if you look at the punctuation, it could be read either way. I was attempting to clarify the statement.

Actually, the punctuation leads more toward the way the right reads it.

The first 3 arguments, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to foreign ambassadors...." all separated by commas, are a string of thoughts that almost reads like a bullet list, and then every thing after the "...but shall include..." is the opposing thought.


..or, you could say that foreigners and aliens are the string of thought, and everything after "...who belong to foreign ambassadors..."

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you can look at that paragraph and read it two different ways. We just need to have it defined by the SC.

 

[Faun]

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

You just did. The word, “those,” does not appear there in the original quote. You just admitted the right reads it wrong.

No, if you look at the punctuation, it could be read either way. I was attempting to clarify the statement.

Actually, the punctuation leads more toward the way the right reads it.

The first 3 arguments, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to foreign ambassadors...." all separated by commas, are a string of thoughts that almost reads like a bullet list, and then every thing after the "...but shall include..." is the opposing thought.


..or, you could say that foreigners and aliens are the string of thought, and everything after "...who belong to foreign ambassadors..."

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you can look at that paragraph and read it two different ways. We just need to have it defined by the SC.

The words, “or those,” completely alters the sentence. It’s one thing to add, “or,” another to add, “or those.”

Also, bear in mind the intent. The intent was to exclude people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., such as diplomats. Foreigners and aliens are. The way you say the right reads that sentence makes no sense.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

Correct. But what you can do is challenge it's interpretation by EO.

Trump could sign an EO and the only thing that could be challenged is the EO's constitutionality.

I keep crunching the numbers and you cannot change the current meaning of the 14th Amendment with the make-up of the SCOTUS.

Correct, his EO can and will be challenged. But that would bring up the issue whether or not the 14th was intended for (or to protect) anchor babies.

The challenge would have to be that such an EO violates the 14th amendment. Whether the court decides it does or does not violate the 14th amendment, either way the issue is settled.

In the minds of the Court, the issue IS settled. Do you know what a clusterphuck would ensue if they now changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment? Soldiers, including officers, would be leaving the armed forces; scientists would be forced out of the United States; businesses owned by those who are no longer citizens would shut down.

Then, there would be that family separation issue again. Were you not warned before how that would play out? I seem to recall reading about that somewhere else here. If you kicked the guy out whose parents were undocumented and he had married a legal (sic) American and they had children, are the children Americans? If so, do we pick up the tab for them in terms of welfare and government handouts? What happens when another country says that the children of the earlier generation are not citizens to wherever you want to send them?

The reality is, the 14th Amendment was passed in order to vacate the Bill of Rights, reducing Rights to mere privileges. Your solution is not a solution. It does not matter what the 14th Amendment says, it was illegally ratified. America got into the predicament it is in on an incremental basis. If you turn things around with immigration, you will have to do it the same way. The current approach has you losing seats in the House and Senate as each election cycle comes and goes. Just because people come here legally (sic) as you like to call it does not mean that they are in love with this country's foundational principles.

Voiding the 14th Amendment would allow those who are here already to stay, but would end the NONEXISTENT anchor baby issue and immigration in general. The 14th Amendment is a social experiment that failed and it is an amendment that was aimed at reducing the American people from free Citizens to mere serfs and subjects.

 

[Wayne Adams]

See, but in that paragraph, I wonder if people are reading it wrong.

The left likes to read it like this:

...except for foreigners or aliens, who belong to foreign diplomats....."

And the right reads it like this:

".....except for foreigners, or aliens, or those who belong to foreign diplomats....."

Which one is closest to the original intent?

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

You just did. The word, “those,” does not appear there in the original quote. You just admitted the right reads it wrong.

No, if you look at the punctuation, it could be read either way. I was attempting to clarify the statement.

Actually, the punctuation leads more toward the way the right reads it.

The first 3 arguments, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to foreign ambassadors...." all separated by commas, are a string of thoughts that almost reads like a bullet list, and then every thing after the "...but shall include..." is the opposing thought.


..or, you could say that foreigners and aliens are the string of thought, and everything after "...who belong to foreign ambassadors..."

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you can look at that paragraph and read it two different ways. We just need to have it defined by the SC.

The words, “or those,” completely alters the sentence. It’s one thing to add, “or,” another to add, “or those.”

Also, bear in mind the intent. The intent was to exclude people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., such as diplomats. Foreigners and aliens are. The way you say the right reads that sentence makes no sense.

I agree with what you're saying. I can see a savvy foreigner in an immigration proceeding. The state's position is that his children are not Americans since he was not under the jurisdiction of the United States. His lawyer would then say, if my client was never under the jurisdiction of the United States, we will all be leaving this court and resuming our lives. If we are not under your jurisdiction, you have no legal basis to detain any of us. Good-bye. Case closed.

If. by the end of this day, a blue wave takes over this country where Georgia and Florida are taken by Democrats, the right would do well to take a hint and consider another approach.

 

[Faun]

The ones who don’t insert words to alter the meaning.

Who's inserting words?

You just did. The word, “those,” does not appear there in the original quote. You just admitted the right reads it wrong.

No, if you look at the punctuation, it could be read either way. I was attempting to clarify the statement.

Actually, the punctuation leads more toward the way the right reads it.

The first 3 arguments, "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to foreign ambassadors...." all separated by commas, are a string of thoughts that almost reads like a bullet list, and then every thing after the "...but shall include..." is the opposing thought.


..or, you could say that foreigners and aliens are the string of thought, and everything after "...who belong to foreign ambassadors..."

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that you can look at that paragraph and read it two different ways. We just need to have it defined by the SC.

The words, “or those,” completely alters the sentence. It’s one thing to add, “or,” another to add, “or those.”

Also, bear in mind the intent. The intent was to exclude people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., such as diplomats. Foreigners and aliens are. The way you say the right reads that sentence makes no sense.

I agree with what you're saying. I can see a savvy foreigner in an immigration proceeding. The state's position is that his children are not Americans since he was not under the jurisdiction of the United States. His lawyer would than, if my client was never under the jurisdiction of the United States, we will all be leaving this court and resuming our lives. If we are not under your jurisdiction, you have no legal basis to detain any of us. Good-bye. Case closed.

If. by the end of this day, a blue wave takes over this country where Georgia and Florida are taken by Democrats, the right would do well to take a hint and consider another approach.

Exactly.

 

[Jroc]

People here illegally are not covered by the 14th amendment for that fact alone ..they are breaking the law by being here

 

[Faun]

People here illegally are not covered by the 14th amendment for that fact alone ..they are breaking the law by being here

Of course they're not -- but their newborns are.

 

[Wayne Adams]

People here illegally are not covered by the 14th amendment for that fact alone ..they are breaking the law by being here

They broke the law by coming here, but according to the SCOTUS it is not a crime to be here without papers. That being said, Stacey Abrams has apparently lost her bid to become governor of Georgia. She would have opened the door to those here without papers to be able to vote.

I looked at the map that showed where Stacey Abrams picked up her votes. Georgia has 159 counties. Abrams won less than thirty counties and ended up with 49 percent of the vote. Big cities are forcing the rest of America into second class citizenship.

Sorry, guy, the 14th Amendment does protect undocumented foreigners and it's just one more reason that most Americans need to understand that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified for the sole purpose of erasing the Bill of Rights. It's time to make the 14th Amendment null and void.

 

[Crixus]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.

If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?

* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet

* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons

* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them

* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased

Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

But grantin amnesty through executive fiat is okay? Dumbfuck.

If granting amnesty is code for citizenship, why would anyone want more foreigners?

* We have more people in prisons than any nation on the planet

* For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, we have more than TEN in prisons

* We cannot adequately insure the current population nor provide adequate health services to them

* In the last ten years, those on fixed incomes (like Social Security) have lost 66 percent of their buying power as costs rose faster than than S.S. check cost of living increased

Charity begins at home and we have sick, elderly, veterans, drug addicts, single mothers, children, and others locked out of society to deal with first.

Democrats want to get as many foreigners in as possible, then grant them amnesty and eventually citizenship. Being a citizen gives you the right to vote.

Every other group outside of Whites votes a majority Democrat. So their first objective is to make Whites a minority as soon as possible. When complete, they will have the ability to make us a single party country forever.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com