How Have 11 Million Illegals Earned The Right Of Citizenship?

[Tiberius]

My ancestors, upon arriving in America, earned their citizenship by serving in the Civil War.

 

And for the record, I disagree, strongly, with the concept of birthright citizenship. Residence should be available to anyone who demonstrates an ability to follow our laws; citizenship, along with the franchise, however, should be restricted based on merit. I advocate tests for proficiency in civics, history, mathematics, and sciences; coupled with military service and/or property or business ownership.

 

Too much government! All those tests, military service and a bureauracy to check who owns land and who doesn't? If people pay taxes they should get a vote. You are advocating taxation without representation.

 

And which side of the Civil War did your ancestors fight on???

[keepthefaith]

Yes, and we have, built right into the Constitution, a process for changing laws. Reagan gave amnesty, so can Obama!

 

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=128303672

 

But why would he? How will Americans benefit from giving amnesty to that many people?

[IDBillzFan]

But why would he? How will Americans benefit from giving amnesty to that many people?

 

If you allow provide amnesty to the illegals, they'll sign up for Obamacare. If they signup for Obamacare, then Obamacare will cover more people, and when Obamacare covers more people, health care costs are controlled, and that will bend the curve on health care costs so we can reduce the deficit, which will give us more money to hand out to illegals on welfare because every dollar in welfare adds $1.60 to the economy.

 

Presto. Amnesty improves the economy!!!

[3rdnlng]

Yes, and we have, built right into the Constitution, a process for changing laws. Reagan gave amnesty, so can Obama!

 

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=128303672

 

Reagan didn't give amnesty. He signed a law that passed both the House and Senate. Obama is choosing which laws he'll enforce. BTW, read the whole article you posted.

[Tiberius]

But why would he? How will Americans benefit from giving amnesty to that many people?

 

Population = More consumers, more workers, younger population more producers. We have an aging population, this will help in that area

 

Reagan didn't give amnesty. He signed a law that passed both the House and Senate. Obama is choosing which laws he'll enforce. BTW, read the whole article you posted.

 

By signing a bill into law that granted amnesty he granted amnesty. What's not to understand here?

[3rdnlng]

Population = More consumers, more workers, younger population more producers. We have an aging population, this will help in that area

 

 

 

By signing a bill into law that granted amnesty he granted amnesty. What's not to understand here?

 

Read the entire article you posted and quit being so !@#$ing obtuse.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Too much government!

Straw man. Conservative libertarianism doesn't believe in no government, we believe in a limited government with few designated functions.

 

All those tests, military service and a bureauracy to check who owns land and who doesn't?

Those functions are already tasked to the federal government. We already track citizenship, have a military, track property and business ownership, and administer tests for citizenship.

 

If people pay taxes they should get a vote.

Inversely, then you would advocate that if someone doesn't pay federal taxes, they should not get a vote?

 

Also, please note, that this is at the federal level only. Individual states and municipalities can have their own laws for taxation and the franchise for state and municipal office.

 

You are advocating taxation without representation.

Where did I advocate taxing those who aren't represented? Furthermore, anyone can choose to be franchised by simply testing and volunteering for military service.

 

And which side of the Civil War did your ancestors fight on???

Both.

Edited January 27, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[4merper4mer]

If you allow provide amnesty to the illegals, they'll sign up for Obamacare. If they signup for Obamacare, then Obamacare will cover more people, and when Obamacare covers more people, health care costs are controlled, and that will bend the curve on health care costs so we can reduce the deficit, which will give us more money to hand out to illegals on welfare because every dollar in welfare adds $1.60 to the economy.

 

Presto. Amnesty improves the economy!!!

 

Man I should have given that pig that pancake a long time ago.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Yes, I was born. That was all I had to do to earn my citizenship.

 

Now what did illegal aliens do to "earn" theirs?

 

Spend 1 day in a hot desert, evading the minutemen militia while trashing a rancher's land and killing his cow. Or, maybe 2 days on a not so seaworthy boat in the middle of the straits of Florida.

Or... 3 hours in labor giving birth to you, the devil spawned.

 

Sure sounds like the desert & sea beats the "slimy hole" act that you were spawned out of.

 

One if by land, two if by sea, three if for free.

 

:-P God I love PPP!

 

 

[DC Tom]

Spend 1 day in a hot desert, evading the minutemen militia while trashing a rancher's land and killing his cow. Or, maybe 2 days on a not so seaworthy boat in the middle of the straits of Florida.

Or... 3 hours in labor giving birth to you, the devil spawned.

 

Sure sounds like the desert & sea beats the "slimy hole" act that you were spawned out of.

 

One if by land, two if by sea, three if for free.

 

:-P God I love PPP!

 

What the !@#$ are you babbling about now?

[TakeYouToTasker]

What the !@#$ are you babbling about now?

If, I'm reading correctly, which I may not be, given the poster, I believe he's referencing your mother's Tom hole.

 

edit: that hole can vary, depending on whether one believes you to be a piece of ****, or not.

Edited January 27, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Koko78]

Disgusting slam on your mother aside, how have illegal aliens worked for it?

 

Wouldn't you agree that hopping a fence in clear violation of US law doesn't constitute work? I mean hell, it's a big fence! It requires climbing and stuff.

 

Racist.

[keepthefaith]

Wouldn't you agree that hopping a fence in clear violation of US law doesn't constitute work? I mean hell, it's a big fence! It requires climbing and stuff.

 

 

 

Not many are hopping a fence. Most just walk in and barely have to lift a leg at the border. This is why all should be deported. The ones that walk in are lazy and the ones that climb the fence just aren't very bright.

Edited January 28, 2014 by keepthefaith

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Because the democrats have an opportunity to add 12 million new votes to their party many in states that are currently red and might gain them more power.

[Tiberius]

1) Straw man. Conservative libertarianism doesn't believe in no government, we believe in a limited government with few designated functions.

2) Those functions are already tasked to the federal government. We already track citizenship, have a military, track property and business ownership, and administer tests for citizenship.

3)Inversely, then you would advocate that if someone doesn't pay federal taxes, they should not get a vote?

4)Also, please note, that this is at the federal level only. Individual states and municipalities can have their own laws for taxation and the franchise for state and municipal office.

5) Where did I advocate taxing those who aren't represented? Furthermore, anyone can choose to be franchised by simply testing and volunteering for military service

 

1) you want use government to take away a fundamental basic human right, the right to a say in the government that taxes people, makes laws that govern their lives, punishes them and is suppose to protect them.

2) Great, now those powers can be used to reduce people to third class peonage

3) no

4) Well I'm glad the federal government has done the right thing and said every citizen has a say in the government

5) you did, if a person has a job and pays taxes but can't pass some exam for whatever reason--and I'm sure it would be administered fairly --they would be taxed and not represented.

 

Because the democrats have an opportunity to add 12 million new votes to their party many in states that are currently red and might gain them more power.

 

Going to happen eventually anyway. Demographics are power

[IDBillzFan]

1) you want use government to take away a fundamental basic human right, the right to a say in the government that taxes people, makes laws that govern their lives, punishes them and is suppose to protect them.

 

Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with what he discussed in terms of limited government, it has absolutely nothing to do with even the slightest attempt at an educated thought. I'm genuinely not sure how you get through the day without inadvertently killing yourself while brushing your teeth. Do you not tire of repeatedly playing the role of village idiot?

[TakeYouToTasker]

1) you want use government to take away a fundamental basic human right, the right to a say in the government that taxes people, makes laws that govern their lives, punishes them and is suppose to protect them.

Ignoring that your response to this point doesn't begin to intelligently address it, I'll simply ask you what you believe rights are.

 

2) Great, now those powers can be used to reduce people to third class peonage

Incorrect. I support a Constitutional Amendment under which the federal government is disallowed from taxing individuals who are non-citizens.

 

3) no

Then your logic is flawed in envoking a taxation standard. Retract it and argue honestly.

 

4) Well I'm glad the federal government has done the right thing and said every citizen has a say in the government

...

 

This isn't an intelligent response to my point. It doesn't make sense.

 

5) you did, if a person has a job and pays taxes but can't pass some exam for whatever reason--and I'm sure it would be administered fairly --they would be taxed and not represented.

See point number two.

[DC Tom]

1) you want use government to take away a fundamental basic human right, the right to a say in the government that taxes people, makes laws that govern their lives, punishes them and is suppose to protect them.

 

Having a say in how you are governed is not and has never been a "fundamental basic human right." It's a privilege of being a citizen in a democracy.

 

Ignoring that your response to this point doesn't begin to intelligently address it, I'll simply ask you what you believe rights are.

 

 

Incorrect. I support a Constitutional Amendment under which the federal government is disallowed from taxing individuals who are non-citizens.

 

 

Then your logic is flawed in envoking a taxation standard. Retract it and argue honestly.

 

 

...

 

This isn't an intelligent response to my point. It doesn't make sense.

 

 

See point number two.

 

Been reading Heinlein recently?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Having a say in how you are governed is not and has never been a "fundamental basic human right." It's a privilege of being a citizen in a democracy.

 

 

 

Been reading Heinlein recently?

Not since my early 20's, though I won't deny being influenced by him. His concept of a meritocracy breathes life into the departed fundamentals of republican governance, and makes them plausible in an enduring sense.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

House Republicans should reply to the president's immigration effort with a simple message: Our first duty is to help struggling Americans find good work and rising wages.

The president's own economic adviser, Gene Sperling, recently noted that there are three unemployed people for every job available. Wages today have been flat since 2000. Last year, a record one in five American households received food stamps.

This is a national emergency.

So what is the president's proposal? With three job seekers for every open job, he proposes doubling the number of guest workers entering every year, granting immediate work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, and tripling the number of new immigrants granted permanent residency over the next decade.

Today, the U.S. admits 1 million immigrants a year. The plan supported by the president and Senate Democrats would increase that to 3 million a year, or 30 million largely lower-skill immigrants over the next 10.

Did anyone ask the American people whether they wanted to triple immigration?

Polling shows that the public opposes these increases. The opposition is particularly strong among lower- and middle-income Americans. Those earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase by 3-1.

This is not hard to understand. From 2000 to 2013, a period of record immigration, the number of U.S.-born Americans with jobs declined by 1.3 million while the number of immigrants with jobs increased 5.3 million. On net, all employment gains went to immigrant workers.

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/01/28/immigration-costs-poor-too-much/?subscriber=1