Why Do Liberals Get Angry When...

[EverCurious]

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were left in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

What does left in mean?

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were LET in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

 

[EatMorChikin]

It's easy to understand where right wingers are coming from. They are afraid illegal aliens taking their jobs. I think they worry too much. If the job requires skills, right wingers are unqualified, the other jobs, right wingers are too lazy to do. This is why we need immigrants.

Translation: We shouldn't care about this, as long as we still have a job. If an illegal is after your job, you don't have a good one blah blah blah.

As if we are only concerned about the jobs aspect. Don't get me wrong, an illegal has zero right to obtain a job on U.S soil. But we have many of them in our prisons too, but liberals ignore the crime aspect as if it never happens. Every American (and there have been many) who is murdered by an illegal, who liberals mostly cheer for. Well that blood in on your filthy hands too, seeing as sanctuary policies are a liberal tactic. As far as I'm concerned, it's trading American lives for votes.

 

[EatMorChikin]

hmmm I had to look it up, there's base rates (state wide I guess) then surcharges on certain purchases (groceries, drugs, clothes, etc.) ~ Sales taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Highest is Alabama at 13.5% w/surcharges, highest base rate is 7.5% in California (their surcharge max is 11.5% though)

Problem with the sales tax sanctuary city theory is that sales taxes go to the state but not fed, yea? Fed. funding grants pays for a bunch of crap that the states couldn't usually afford to pay for without Fed funding - infrastructure stuff mostly. So I mean yea, I guess illegals would be paying into the state though sales taxes, but they're (at least not that I've seen, still waiting on Ravi's proclaimed 50% pay payroll and fed taxes source when s/he gets home) not paying into those fed coffers. Aka they're getting all the benefits but not paying as much as the legal citizens who pay said payroll/fed/state taxes and also pay whatever sales tax.

"As much" is my argument.

Those who say "They are getting free shit" are simply lying. Furthermore, all of us get "free shit". I didn't pay for I-17 anymore than you paid for I-10. I paid part of it, sure but all of us are warmed by the fires started by others.

Public education, military protection, health care (medicare, medicade, CHIP, and ACA subsidies), transportation, and assistance programs (welfare, food stamps, financial aid, school lunches, low-income housing, child care assistance, utility bill assistance,) science and medical research, and interest on the national debt are all paid by federal taxes. These are things that illegals do, or often, use, or benefit from, but are not paying into (if they are not paying federal taxes.) That /does/ equal "free shit" no matter how you want to shake it.

Bug again, how much of your paycheck are you willing to put in so that illegal's can stay without paying for those services? 10-20%?

So, if we got rid of illegals, we would no longer have to pay for Public Eucation (most of that is a State cost by the way supported through State sales and property taxes), National Defense, medicare, medicaid,CHIP, ACA subsidies, transportation,welfare, food stamps, financial aid, school lunches or low income housing? Who knew?

I'm happy with the taxes I pay.

I'm okay with the taxes I pay, I don't want them to go up however.

The fed puts in like 8-10% of public education funding. Can we give illegal's children 8-10% (edit sorry) "less" of the education citizens get? If not, then their folks should be paying into the funds. And that's even if we're presuming that said illegals own homes and pay property taxes.

You're not okay with being limited to driving only the roads you've paid for?

This is your argument for supporting illegal immigration? You are a complete hack!

 

[Ravi]

I find it interesting that the same camp always screaming at us rich people to "pay your fair share" (which is apparently like 100%) have no problem with illegals not paying fed taxes. I just don't get it sorry.

What is the point of becoming an American citizen?

That isn't REMOTELY true. Let them pay federal taxes like everyone else.

 

[Ravi]

What does left in mean?

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were LET in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

 

[EverCurious]

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were LET in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

 

[Correll]

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were left in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

What does left in mean?

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were LET in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

Link to support your claim that the 14 million number includes illegals.

I don't care that many who want to legally immigrate from Mexico are denied.

I consider that Mexico has greatly taken advantage of our lack of enforcement and generosity over the last few decades, and I want a complete stop of all immigration from Mexico immediately.

 

[Ravi]

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

 

[Ravi]

What does left in mean?

that's odd. Wikipedia says 14 million were LET in from 2000 to 2010.

Does that number count the majority who are left in due the much abused "family ties"?

that's a lot less that 650,000 per year.

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

Link to support your claim that the 14 million number includes illegals.

I don't care that many who want to legally immigrate from Mexico are denied.

I consider that Mexico has greatly taken advantage of our lack of enforcement and generosity over the last few decades, and I want a complete stop of all immigration from Mexico immediately.

It's at your wikipedia source. Not to mention if we only allow 650K per year then it stands to reason that a boat load of illegals come as well. Or are you going to pretend we don't have any illegal immigrants?

That's a great platform for Republicans to run on. A complete stop to Mexican immigration. I love it.

 

[EverCurious]

14 million divided by 10 is 1.4 million a year.

1.4 million a year is a lot more than 650 k per year.


Does your initial numbers include the majority who are let in due to the much abused "family ties" loophole?

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

 

[Ravi]

mmmkay. The 14 million figure includes both legal and illegal. In a ten year period, only 6,500,000 would legally be allowed to immigrate.

Even family immigration is limited each year.

Take a look at this chart from 2012. Over 1 million Mexicans alone applied to immigrate to the USA but the quota only allows for only 47, 200 to be accepted.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? | Immigration Policy Center

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

And it has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the illusion of being fair to all. But it is misguided since the vast majority of people that want to immigrate are from the six nations in that link.

 

[EverCurious]

I think that's a product of the basis for immigration policy in the first place - diversity. Don't you think it's better to bring in a variety instead of all one uhm "nation"? If the point of immigration isn't diversity, then what is it, like social assistance thing (giving them an opportunity for the "good life"? If the latter right, then why should /only/ Mexican's be allowed that benefit?

And the bigger question is how many should we take in? All of them, the entire world? How many is "enough"?

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

And it has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the illusion of being fair to all. But it is misguided since the vast majority of people that want to immigrate are from the six nations in that link.

I can't help that you're not being clear in what you're saying. You're doing the same "putting words in my mouth" too though so ya know, it happens.

Anyway, so you think that the 27k immigrants per who are /not/ from those 6 countries aren't coming in, thus the overall limit of however many (like presuming say 20 countries it would be like 540k allowed in) so we're /not/ getting the total of 540k? I have a feeling all nations are hitting their "quotas" (I'll look it up if I have time,) however your argument seems to be that Mexico, China, etc (the 6 countries listed) should be allowed to have a higher "quota" than those other countries. To which I simply wonder /why/? Why should we allow more of /any/ country than another? (excluding war refugees and such)

 

[Ravi]

Who said only Mexicans? Jeesh, you pull a lot of crap out of your ass.

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

And it has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the illusion of being fair to all. But it is misguided since the vast majority of people that want to immigrate are from the six nations in that link.

I can't help that you're not being clear in what you're saying. You're doing the same "putting words in my mouth" too though so ya know, it happens.

Anyway, so you think that the 27k immigrants per who are /not/ from those 6 countries aren't coming in, thus the overall limit of however many (like presuming say 20 countries it would be like 540k allowed in) so we're /not/ getting the total of 540k? I have a feeling all nations are hitting their "quotas" (I'll look it up if I have time,) however your argument seems to be that Mexico, China, etc (the 6 countries listed) should be allowed to have a higher "quota" than those other countries. To which I simply wonder /why/? Why should we allow more of /any/ country than another? (excluding war refugees and such)

Why? Because they come anyway and work and in at least 50% of the cases don't pay payroll tax.

 

[EverCurious]

Well you did, I bolded it for you.

The point is that we limit certain nationalities in order to preserve diversity and opportunity for other nations immigrating into the US.

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

And it has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the illusion of being fair to all. But it is misguided since the vast majority of people that want to immigrate are from the six nations in that link.

I can't help that you're not being clear in what you're saying. You're doing the same "putting words in my mouth" too though so ya know, it happens.

Anyway, so you think that the 27k immigrants per who are /not/ from those 6 countries aren't coming in, thus the overall limit of however many (like presuming say 20 countries it would be like 540k allowed in) so we're /not/ getting the total of 540k? I have a feeling all nations are hitting their "quotas" (I'll look it up if I have time,) however your argument seems to be that Mexico, China, etc (the 6 countries listed) should be allowed to have a higher "quota" than those other countries. To which I simply wonder /why/? Why should we allow more of /any/ country than another? (excluding war refugees and such)

Why? Because they come anyway and work and in at least 50% of the cases don't pay payroll tax.

So if we allow any and everyone to gain citizenship, at what point do we consider those who are already American citizens? I mean we're looking at a fairly high unemployment rate. IDK I guess I put more priority on those who are already citizens than I do those who don't want to wait for whatever number of years to get in legally.

Perhaps it would be ideal to take each individual application on an individual basis of circumstances - eliminating quotas and such entirely, but frankly even /with/ those quotas in place we can't process it all. So the solution proposed is completely open borders, no process at all. At which point, again, what is the point of being a US citizen?

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me. Even a 5th-grader could understand Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. We don't need to rewrite or repeal the 14th, it says clearly in Section 5, Congress has plenary power. All of this false bluster is the product of the liberal lying left who want people to believe that birthright citizenship is Constitutionally guaranteed when it's NOT.

And yes... I realize there are politicians in Washington who want to hide behind this "excuse" that we can't do anything without changing the Constitution. It absolves them from blame for not solving this problem! This is a plenary power of Congress, it says so in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It also says so in Amendment XIV Section 5. It's not MY interpretation, it's what the documents say in plain English.

 

[Boss]

No...much like Obama saying "IF you like your insurance, you can keep it." Most understood the asterisk there being that if the insurance you had met ACA standards, you could keep it. But I can empathize with those who didn't. When Mr. Trump paints the picture of people just hopscotching across the border and a "big beautiful wall" is erected...I can empathize with those who think it will prevent immigration. He should clarify (if he knows the truth that it).

See what I mean? All it ever takes is for someone to subtly switch from illegal border crossing to immigration... then suddenly, we are debating immigration... the right is opposed to immigration and immigrants. That has NEVER been the position of the right. I am offended that this LIE continues to be perpetrated... with impunity.

We are not talking about immigration or preventing immigration!

 

[Skylar]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

I'm on the fence. I find it the use of birth right citizenship by illegals to be an abuse of our system.

While I have no particular animosity to illegals or their kids (they're just looking for a better life), I do recognize that we spend lots of resources supporting them. And most often these folks don't have many marketable skills. They're often illiterate (in both spanish and english) and they drive down the market value of labor in the US. Making it difficult to make a living in industries like construction, which used to pay quite well.

I would support an adjustment to our constitution that granted birthright citizenship for any child born to parents allowed to be here. But illegals are, in a legal sense, fugitive from our law. The entire concept of allegiance is hard to argue for fugitives.

 

[Skylar]

I'm sorry but I am offended that you continue to refer to immigration laws and immigration policy as if anyone on the right has questioned anything related to legal immigration.

For far too long, this has been the problem with the left. They want to lie and pretend the right is opposed to immigrants... bunch of racists who hate brown people. And you have some republicrats steppin' and fetchin' trying to show they don't hate brown people... But this isn't about racism or xenophobia or whatever sickening meme you wish to hurl at the right. This is about a problem we have of illegal aliens crossing our southern border and the problem is going to be resolved.

It amazes me that the same mindless liberal idiots who cheer the shitting on cop cars occutard movement and whine and moan about wealth disparity, living wages and the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer... are supporting this insanity of open borders.

I'm not a liberal nor "on the left" so stuff it son. I've said many times that I've a problem with illegal aliens, I've also said it should be up to the state to decide if they take in aliens at all. So get off your horse of assuming what I'm saying.

/I/ am about the truth, and the truth is that the constitution applies /all/ people in the country; citizen's, non-citizens, legal, or not. That doesn't mean that anyone can come into the country and take whatever they want with no consequences, it doesn't mean open borders, it doesn't mean that illegals are /not/ a problem for the country. It simply means what is written and the interpretation of historians based on the words of the founding fathers themselves.

Please do refrain from trying to put political party lines and beliefs in my mouth simply because I agree the government did interpret it correctly, even if I don't like it nor agree with it being "best for the country," it's still what it says...

And as a note, my political alignment(s) are clearly noted in my sig for everyone to see - you are completely barking up the wrong tree.


Now, if you have a different interpretation of what the written constitution /means/ than all the historian's, SOCTUS's, and a shit ton of other higher up's interpretation's, that's fine, do talk about that, and tell your reps, because pretty much the entire government quite simply disagrees with your viewpoint (for various reasons honestly.)



If that's a good policy/mindset to maintain in current times because of the advance of transportation technology, or not, is certainly a question I agree - things have changed a /lot/ and in ways that the founding fathers could never have foreseen. However, I am /not/ going to reinterpret the constitution just to forward my /personal/ opinion that illegals are a problem for this country right now. We don't need to reinterpret the constitution in order to modify the laws surrounding immigration, we don't need to do it to alter the policies.

Frankly, if we had left the power with the god damn states as was intended by the constitution then this wouldn't be an issue today, but no, people with political agendas go in and modify and reinterpret in order to forward their bullshit and we get this shit. Which is, imo, exactly what /you/ are doing and why I'm taking issue with your statements even though I actually agree with your viewpoint on the southern borders and stuff - limiting illegals, doing something to circumvent birth citizenship somehow so it's not abused, etc.

I didn't assume anything about your politics. I said I was offended that you keep talking about immigration policy when the discussion is about illegal border crossing. Then I started a new paragraph and talked about how this was the problem with the left. I didn't say you were part of the left. Just because you are flooding the board with left-wing lies and propaganda from openborders.org doesn't mean you're a liberal.

When the fucking Constitution says Congress has power to set naturalization laws, I don't need to "interpret" that... it's clear and unambiguous to me.

The 'fucking' constitution also says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That's pretty cut and dry as well. And by many accounts would override any law by congress regarding naturalization that restricted birthright citizenship. That definitely requires some interpretation because there are passages of the constituition that are potentially in conflict.

That you ignore the 14th amendment doesn't mean its any less authoritative. And if the 14th amendment grants citizenship to any person born here, then a law by congress saying otherwise would violate the constitution. Something congress doesn't have the authority to do.

 

[Skylar]

No...much like Obama saying "IF you like your insurance, you can keep it." Most understood the asterisk there being that if the insurance you had met ACA standards, you could keep it. But I can empathize with those who didn't. When Mr. Trump paints the picture of people just hopscotching across the border and a "big beautiful wall" is erected...I can empathize with those who think it will prevent immigration. He should clarify (if he knows the truth that it).

See what I mean? All it ever takes is for someone to subtly switch from illegal border crossing to immigration... then suddenly, we are debating immigration... the right is opposed to immigration and immigrants. That has NEVER been the position of the right. I am offended that this LIE continues to be perpetrated... with impunity.

We are not talking about immigration or preventing immigration!

US laws refer to them as 'unauthorized aliens'. I think that's a reasonable term to use.

 

[Ravi]

Well, no, I did not. I used them as an example because they want to come here in larger numbers than anyone else.

And no, we don't limit certain nationalities. We limit how many people can come from each country. Why don't you read the link and educate yourself. You don't sound very curious to me.

I did read the link and it says that each nation is limited to x legal immigration visa's - in addition to family relations, asylum, refugees which are separate numbers - so what? Again, I believe that is there to ensure diversity, like I said, to basically spread the opportunity to /all/ nationalities who wish to come in, rather then just letting only Mexicans in (because they have the highest number of apps in at the time or whatever.)

If you're trying to say that if they come /through/ Mexico, even if they're from Brazil, they're considered Mexicans, I'm not really buying that. You'll have to find me some sources that is the case.

No, I'm not trying to say that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

And it has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with the illusion of being fair to all. But it is misguided since the vast majority of people that want to immigrate are from the six nations in that link.

I can't help that you're not being clear in what you're saying. You're doing the same "putting words in my mouth" too though so ya know, it happens.

Anyway, so you think that the 27k immigrants per who are /not/ from those 6 countries aren't coming in, thus the overall limit of however many (like presuming say 20 countries it would be like 540k allowed in) so we're /not/ getting the total of 540k? I have a feeling all nations are hitting their "quotas" (I'll look it up if I have time,) however your argument seems to be that Mexico, China, etc (the 6 countries listed) should be allowed to have a higher "quota" than those other countries. To which I simply wonder /why/? Why should we allow more of /any/ country than another? (excluding war refugees and such)

Why? Because they come anyway and work and in at least 50% of the cases don't pay payroll tax.

So if we allow any and everyone to gain citizenship, at what point do we consider those who are already American citizens? I mean we're looking at a fairly high unemployment rate. IDK I guess I put more priority on those who are already citizens than I do those who don't want to wait for whatever number of years to get in legally.

Perhaps it would be ideal to take each individual application on an individual basis of circumstances - eliminating quotas and such entirely, but frankly even /with/ those quotas in place we can't process it all. So the solution proposed is completely open borders, no process at all. At which point, again, what is the point of being a US citizen?

The constitution.