Thread: Influx into the US

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it?

That counts as a "plan"? How do you suppose he's actually going to compel Mexico.

Screw the wall. On our side of the border we dig a godamn trench 1 mile down and 1/2 a mile wide. Give Mexico the dirt. We construct 1 bridge to truck or train materials back and forth. No more foot traffic. The problem is solved. A wall requires someone to manage and police it. A trench and who cares. Plus the trench is far more aesthetically pleasant versus some wall where all they will do is add graffiti.

The problem in the US is most want it all and do not want to work for it. Everybody wants the easy life. They have convinced themselves that "Labor" is below them and they are smarter so lets hire uneducated immigrants to do jobs they have become to lazy to do themselves. I have always cleaned my own yard. swept my own driveway, dug my own holes, planted my own trees, cleaned my own house, Trimmed my own tress, washed my own car, vacuumed my own pool etc etc. If people would do their own shit the influx of immigrants would slow way down and likely go away. Why? No Money!. But NOPE. Its all the entitled people and now they have their fat, lazy, play station video gaming talking head kids with their faces plastered to a tablet all the time growing up being taught to have others do the work for them. It cracks me up to see Viets hire Mexicans to clean their yards or Chinese hiring Mexicans to cook or Mexicans hiring Viets to clean their yards or Chinese hiring Filipinos to clean their houses.

What is really a pathetic thing in my eyes is to witness kids doing nothing but watching some other person come in and clean their house or yard. Put those kids to work. Instill some values in them. Stop enabling kids to live a sterile life.

Simply cannot understand the left's fascination with illegals. Who in their right mind would advocate people coming here illegally?

Eisenhower knew what to do and we can do it again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Simply cannot understand the left's fascination with illegals. Who in their right mind would advocate people coming here illegally?

Good point!

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Mexico uses common sense. Mexico is asking pedestrians crossing into Mexico to produce a passport for a 6 month visa with a fee. Are they "Nazis?" Are they "racists? I don't think so.

Now, if the US asks people of all nationalities walking into the US for have a passport, get it stamped for 6 months - and it will never happen - the US is "racist," like "Adolf Hitler," the "Nazis."
Will the US reciprocate? Hell no.

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- Walking into Mexico at the nation's busiest border crossing with the United States is no longer an uninterrupted stroll for foreigners.

Starting late Wednesday, pedestrians going to Tijuana from San Diego at the San Ysidro crossing must choose between a line for Mexicans who get waved through, and a line for foreigners who must show a passport, fill out a form and - if staying more than a week - pay 322 pesos, or roughly $20, for a six-month permit.

...."This is about putting our house in order," said Rodulfo Figueroa, Mexico's top immigration official in Baja California state, which includes Tijuana.



News from The Associated Press

You could probably call that the "Trump Tax".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Donald Trump is the only individual in the national spotlight right now with a plan to deal with these hordes of illegal aliens.

Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it?

That counts as a "plan"? How do you suppose he's actually going to compel Mexico.

And he wants to deport all children from the US if their parents were illegals, regardless of their constitutional rights.

Because apparently he has found lawyers who told him he can do that.






*pause*

Don't forget his audience . . . BM and the like . . . ffs, they even think that being born in the US doesn't make you a citizen. Bloody idiots

Mark Levin audio: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship Without Amending The Constitution 14 minutes.

Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship Without Amending The Constitution - Fox Nation

If The Donald achieves his goal of gaining Big White you know he's gonna take this to the wall 'citing the Congressional Minutes from when the 14th Amendment that was debated and passed. In no uncertain terms it was the clear and unmistakable intent that this amendment not create anchor babies.'

Gonna be interesting...

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't forget his audience . . . BM and the like . . . ffs, they even think that being born in the US doesn't make you a citizen. Bloody idiots

The laws need to be changed. If one of your two parents isn't a U.S. citizen then you should have to go through the immigration process.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't forget his audience . . . BM and the like . . . ffs, they even think that being born in the US doesn't make you a citizen. Bloody idiots

The laws need to be changed. If one of your two parents isn't a U.S. citizen then you should have to go through the immigration process.

In Asia some Thais, Vietnamese and Koreans would mention Chinese (who could afford it) flying to the US before a certain stage of pregnancy and having the child in the US so the kid is an automatic citizen.

This makes immigration for the rest of the family easier.

It's not right.

There has to be a limit and common sense.

I just saw the silliness of reporters giving a knee-jerk reaction today of Jeb Bush when he used the term "Anchor Babies."

The US has clearly devolved.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't forget his audience . . . BM and the like . . . ffs, they even think that being born in the US doesn't make you a citizen. Bloody idiots

The laws need to be changed. If one of your two parents isn't a U.S. citizen then you should have to go through the immigration process.

Why do they need to be changed? Can you imagine the outcry of all Americans with non-American spouses?
Please do explain why they should go through the immigration process . . . are they not just as good Americans as those who have two parents with US nationality?
Why are they not as good or worthy?

Timmy is born in Idaho. Both parents have US citizenship.
18 years later Timmy has gone to primary school in Idaho . . . all the way through to University. Never left Idaho.
Bingo = Timmy - American

Johnny is born in Iowa. One parent has US citizenship, the other Canadian.
18 years later Johnny has gone to primary school in Iowa . . . all the way through ti university. Never left Iowa
Bingo = Johnny - NOT American.

Why is Johnny not worthy?

OK, let's put this in perspective shall we.

A child in born on NZ soil. Irregardless who the parents are, does that child automatically become a NZ citizen?

Don't think that's the case although y'all can edjumacate those of us who are questioning the 14th Amendment.

Back to you...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

OK, let's put this in perspective shall we.

A child in born on NZ soil. Irregardless who the parents are, does that child automatically become a NZ citizen?

Don't think that's the case although y'all can edjumacate those of us who are questioning the 14th Amendment.

Back to you...

What the fuck does that have to do with it?

You're the one always blabbing on about how the constitution must be protected and you can't do anything about gun laws because of the Second Amendment.

Yet when it suits your racist agenda, you suddenly claim that the constitution should be amended.

You really are a hypocrite.

Or are you saying you would be happy to adopt NZ's gun laws as well?

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't forget his audience . . . BM and the like . . . ffs, they even think that being born in the US doesn't make you a citizen. Bloody idiots

The laws need to be changed. If one of your two parents isn't a U.S. citizen then you should have to go through the immigration process.

Why do they need to be changed? Can you imagine the outcry of all Americans with non-American spouses?
Please do explain why they should go through the immigration process . . . are they not just as good Americans as those who have two parents with US nationality?
Why are they not as good or worthy?

Timmy is born in Idaho. Both parents have US citizenship.
18 years later Timmy has gone to primary school in Idaho . . . all the way through to University. Never left Idaho.
Bingo = Timmy - American

Johnny is born in Iowa. One parent has US citizenship, the other Canadian.
18 years later Johnny has gone to primary school in Iowa . . . all the way through ti university. Never left Iowa
Bingo = Johnny - NOT American.

Why is Johnny not worthy?

In both of your examples one of the parents is a U.S. Citizen. My post specifically said if neither parent is a U.S. citizen then they should have to go through the immigration process.

In other words ... Obama is good to go. The King of Thailand is not.

^ SK,

Panama Hat does NOT understand the United States

But, but Donald Trump is going to kick out all those illegal aliens when he becomes president, aint he?

Panama, get a clue, as usual.

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. [... they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924." Yeah, Trump's the idiot.

Ann Coulter - August 19, 2015 - FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT

As previously mentioned, it's gonna be interesting...

Trump’s immigration plan could spell doom for the GOP

It has come to this: The GOP, formerly the party of Lincoln and ostensibly the party of liberty and limited government, is being defined by clamors for a mass roundup and deportation of millions of human beings. To will an end is to will the means for the end, so the Republican clamors are also for the requisite expansion of government’s size and coercive powers.

Most of Donald Trump’s normally loquacious rivals are swaggeringly eager to confront Vladimir Putin but are too invertebrate — Lindsey Graham is an honorable exception — to voice robust disgust with Trump and the spirit of, the police measures necessary for and the cruelties that would accompany his policy. The policy is: “They’ve got to go.”

“They,” the approximately 11.3 million illegal immigrants (down from 12.2 million in 2007), have these attributes: Eighty-eight percent have been here at least five years. Of the 62 percent who have been here at least 10 years, about 45 percent own their own homes. About half have children who were born here and hence are citizens. Dara Lind of Vox reports that at least 4.5 million children who are citizens have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant.

Trump evidently plans to deport almost 10 percent of California’s workers and 13 percent of that state’s K-12 students. He is, however, at his most Republican when he honors family values: He proposes to deport intact families, including children who are citizens. “We have to keep the families together,” he says, “but they have to go.” Trump would deport everyone, then “have an expedited way of getting them [“the good ones”; “when somebody is terrific”] back.” Big Brother government will identify the “good” and “terrific” from among the wretched refuse of other teeming shores.

Trump proposes seizing money that illegal immigrants from Mexico try to send home. This might involve sacrificing mail privacy, but desperate times require desperate measures. He would vastly enlarge the federal government’s enforcement apparatus, but he who praises single-payer health-care systems and favors vast eminent domain powers has never made a fetish of small government.

Today’s big government finds running Amtrak too large a challenge, and Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent. But Trump wants America to think big. The big costs, in decades and dollars (hundreds of billions), of Trump’s project could be reduced if, say, the targets were required to sew yellow patches on their clothing to advertise their coming expulsion. There is precedent.

Birthright citizenship, established by the 14th Amendment and opposed by Trump and his emulators, accords with America’s natural-rights doctrine. Arguably, this policy is unwise. But is this an argument Republicans should foment in the toxic atmosphere Trump has created, an argument that would injure the next Republican nominee even more than Mitt Romney injured himself? Romney, who advocated making illegal immigrants’ lives so unpleasant they would “self-deport,” might be president if he had received 10 points more than his 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

About 900,000 of America’s Hispanic citizens reach voting age each year. In 2012, less than half of eligible Hispanics voted, but Republicans have figured out how to increase Hispanic turnout.

A substantial majority of Americans — majorities in all states — and, in some polls, a narrow majority of Republicans favor a path for illegal immigrants not just to legal status but to citizenship. Less than 20 percent of Americans favor comprehensive deportation.

This may, however, be changing now that so many supposed Republicans embrace a candidate who, six years into Ronald Reagan’s presidency, disparaged Ronald Reagan as someone who tried to “con” the public. Looking on the bright side, perhaps Trump supporters are amiably broadminded in their embrace of a candidate who thinks we cannot presently be proud to be American citizens (he says his presidency will enable us to again be proud).

If, after November 2016, there are autopsies of Republican presidential hopes, political coroners will stress the immigration-related rhetoric of August 2015. And of October 1884.

Then, the Republican presidential nominee, former senator James G. Blaine, returning home to Maine in the campaign’s closing days, attended a New York rally on his behalf, where a prominent Protestant clergyman said Democrats were a party of “rum, Romanism and rebellion.” Catholics, many of them immigrants, noticed. Blaine lost New York, and with it the presidency, by 1,200 votes out of more than 1 million cast.

Disclosure: The columnist’s wife, Mari Will, works for Scott Walker.

Link

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. [... they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924." Yeah, Trump's the idiot.

Ann Coulter - August 19, 2015 - FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT

As previously mentioned, it's gonna be interesting...

A bunch of immigrants refused to grant citizenship to a Native American.

How bizarre is that.

^ Hence the quaint American term 'alien' . . .

BM and his cohorts would argue that the Native Americans were not the original inhabitants, or at the very least haven't been there long enough - 10s of thousands of years don't really carry weight against hypocrisy.

Anyway, before they invaded north America it was terra nullus . . . therefore, they are illegal immigrants and can't prove American birthright.

Logical

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. [... they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924." Yeah, Trump's the idiot.

Ann Coulter - August 19, 2015 - FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT

As previously mentioned, it's gonna be interesting...

A bunch of immigrants refused to grant citizenship to a Native American.

How bizarre is that.

There you go, your first republicans.

Chinese hire surrogate mothers in the US. Green card at 21.

Paying Americans to carry their children allows Chinese to circumvent their home country's restrictive policies on reproduction -- surrogacy is illegal, and despite recent reforms, families still face penalties if authorities learn they have more than one child.

Another incentive: The child is automatically a U.S. citizen, and can sponsor their parents for a green card on reaching the age of 21.


"I've never seen anything like what I've seen with the Chinese," said John Weltman of Boston-based agency Circle Surrogacy. "It's like an explosion."

Chinese are hiring surrogate moms in America - Aug. 23, 2015

It can't go forever:

Birth tourism: 71% of illegals with kids collect welfare...

Birthright Citizenship Is a Magnet for Illegal Immigrants, and It Has Real Economic Costs | National Review Online

Is this a kick in the ass for Americans or what?

Tech firms post want ads: foreign workers only...

Technology Industry and Foreign Workers | National Review Online

That schmuck Zukerberg et. al. can kma...