# An Illegal Immigration Beginning



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Right on Arizona - they're in the process of enacting an illegal Immigration law based on trespassing. There's over 460,000 illegal immigrants in AZ alone. The feds owe AZ 1 Billion dollars for incarcerating illegals. 

Yes, some do contribute, but the amount of money spent due to crime created by illegals over shadow any good here in AZ. 

I only hope that when "O" decides to work on changing immigration laws, this law will stand. 

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_8ca3e92f-7f90-5860-809d-6771eabbe8e0.html

An aside: they're also considering a NON-PERMIT CONCEALED CARRY law......I gotta' think on that one.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The people of Arizona should be ashamed of themselves. Foreign born Democrats deserve more then that.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I was in Arizona last week, down by Sierra Vista. There was a HUGE border patrol presence. Road blocks, helicopters, planes ... even a dirigible. A border patrol BLIMP! I was of the mind that the government was doing all they could on the topic right up to the point where I was leaving and I went through the roadblock myself.

They had trucks, barricades, and a couple of dozen armed agents standing around. I pulled up and got out my wallet, thinking I'd have to show some sort of ID to get through. The agent asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" I said, "Um, yes" and he said, "Have a nice day."

All of that and apparently all of the immigration law enforcement is on the honor system.

It sort of explains what happened to Robert Krentz when you think about it. If I was a rancher down there, I'd be taking steps on my own and saying to heck with the government.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Ernie said:


> I was in Arizona last week, down by Sierra Vista. There was a HUGE border patrol presence. Road blocks, helicopters, planes ... even a dirigible. A border patrol BLIMP! I was of the mind that the government was doing all they could on the topic right up to the point where I was leaving and I went through the roadblock myself.
> 
> They had trucks, barricades, and a couple of dozen armed agents standing around. I pulled up and got out my wallet, thinking I'd have to show some sort of ID to get through. The agent asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" I said, "Um, yes" and he said, "Have a nice day."
> 
> ...


I'm surprised you got away with a simple "Um, yes." They must be slacking. I've tried using just that several times (& always get the "yes, what?") and have always been required to state fully, "Yes, I am an American citizen."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Is it not odd they let him past at that? An illegal immigrant could have just as well said "Um..yes."


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> An aside: they're also considering a NON-PERMIT CONCEALED CARRY law......I gotta' think on that one.


Gotta remember.
If you have a law outlawing guns, only outlaws will have them. :huh:

Felons are still prohibited from having a gun so whats the worry?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

In their defense, I'm not sure how many illegal aliens go through their roadblock driving an AVIS rental car from the Tucson airport though.

I saw them busting about 30 folks on my way in though, so I know they're making arrests. I was told while down there that the checkpoint I went through stops about 300,000 illegal aliens per year. And that's just the highway. How many they stop on the backroads, or in the dry gulches or open desert I have no idea.

As I understand it, the word on the street (or the arroyo) is that Obama is going to give the illegal aliens amnesty. Whether or not that happens, the Mexicans believe it and so anyone who ever thought of coming here is finding a way to make it happen now. The coyotes are making a bundle off the immigrants, an increasing number of them which are being forced to carry drugs, the border patrol is getting an increasing budget, and the politicians on both sides get to complain about illegal aliens or talk about immigration "reform". 

Everyone wins. Except for the illegal immigrants ... and poor Robert Krentz.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

It's already illegal to be an illegal. Making another law to make it more illegal to be illegal is crazy. That proposed bill listed here by the OP sounds unconstitional. The lawyers will love it. 

The article gave a silly number of how many illegals are in AZ. Hawww I don't believe that they have any better method to know how many are there and you and I would have. They just threw out a number. 


The children born in the US of illegal parents/parent are citizens. Am I the only person who sees the current hate-spew on our fellow mankind as unAmerican? :ashamed:

It is hurtful to those kids, and they are just kids. They live each and every day in terror that one or both parents will fall into deportation as has happened to many. Most illegals are not aiming to vote Republican or Democrat, but just want to scratch out a living for their kids. The US govn't needs to pass comprehensive Immigration reform. The undocumented need to be documented.... and now. 

Document the illegals, leave them as illegals but with work priviledges, and driver permits if an exam is passed and have a bank-account. Then we know the number.

AND close the border!

If reform happens with "O" then I forsee a similar piece of crap as with the Health Care(non)reform "victory."

Close the border! ! CLOSE the border!!! CLOSE THE  BORDER; Like Ernie, they only asked me if I were a citizen when I came back; but then they had no problem racial profiling me as I am so very white with a strong southern accent.

But the driver of the simi truck that abandoned a trailer full of illegals who died wasn't stopped either. oh, did I say: "CLOSE THE BORDER"?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

There was a group of Mexicans who would come up every year to help out on our ranch. This was back in the 1970's. About four or five men who would bring their wives and children with them. They'd work with us about 4-6 weeks and then go back to Mexico. On the money they made here they could live comfortably for most of the year back in Mexico.

I was little at the time. My father would often drop me off at the bunkhouse where the senoras would feed me warm tortillas and sing to me. They'd tuck me into bunks with their own children while the men worked late into the night. 

My sympathy generally lies with the Mexicans. Times are different now; it's a different world. We need to find a way to close the border and get the good ones here and working and the bad ones out. The drug dealers, the coyotes, the gang members. How do we ditch them and keep the ones who just want to work and raise their kids in a safe place?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> It's already illegal to be an illegal. Making another law to make it more illegal to be illegal is crazy. That proposed bill listed here by the OP sounds unconstitional. The lawyers will love it.
> 
> The article gave a silly number of how many illegals are in AZ. Hawww I don't believe that they have any better method to know how many are there and you and I would have. They just threw out a number.


It's easy,just take 
Number of people on welfare minus total citizens = illegal immigrants....lol 
If their able to get their share of the pie without fear of deportation they will love it. :icecream:

Dang never ending pies causin all this trouble


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

We need to stop the "anchor" baby deal - most countries do not have that option on their books. Mexico sure as heck doesn't!

I think AZ is trying to enact that law because the feds aren't sending the requested help securing the border, and also telling AZ law enforcement that they can't enforce immigration laws.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/31/states-boost-border-security-pleas-washington-unmet/


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2010)

If we really wanted to get rid of illegals it would be fairly simple & fairly inexpensive . If everyone who hired them , rented to them , ect , faced a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for doing so they would be gone pronto . It also burns my butt that they can sneak over the border , have their children at the expense of the legal taxpayers & then those children are citizens .


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The Alabama State Patrol has had troopers trained and authorized as ICE agents since 2003.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

WV Hillbilly said:


> If we really wanted to get rid of illegals it would be fairly simple & fairly inexpensive . If everyone who hired them , rented to them , ect , faced a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for doing so they would be gone pronto . It also burns my butt that they can sneak over the border , have their children at the expense of the legal taxpayers & then those children are citizens .


A 'burb near us- Farmers Branch TX had a law passed that made it illegal to rent to illegals. It was stricken down by a judge just a few days ago. Reason was that only ICE can enforce immigration laws. 
:grumble:


----------



## francismilker (Jan 12, 2006)

Ernie said:


> I was in Arizona last week, down by Sierra Vista. There was a HUGE border patrol presence. Road blocks, helicopters, planes ... even a dirigible. A border patrol BLIMP! I was of the mind that the government was doing all they could on the topic right up to the point where I was leaving and I went through the roadblock myself.
> 
> They had trucks, barricades, and a couple of dozen armed agents standing around. I pulled up and got out my wallet, thinking I'd have to show some sort of ID to get through. The agent asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" I said, "Um, yes" and he said, "Have a nice day."
> 
> ...



Ernie, If you're the dude in your avatar I'd might say you don't remind me stereotypically of someone named H(j)esus, josea, juan, or pedro. I'd hate to stereotype anyone, but a middle aged man with a pipe in his mouth probably isn't going to be harrassed as being an illegal! lol.....


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Heh. I'm dark-skinned and dark-bearded so my ethnicity often eludes people. People tend to see what they want to see in that, be it Hispanic or Arabic. 

I think it has to do more with circumstance. If they stopped me in old work clothes while I was walking along the side of the road wearing a backpack then probably TEN forms of ID might not have convinced them I was an American citizen.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

One of the reasons Arizona is trying to pass this law is that ICE is NOT enforcing the law that it is "illegal to be illegal". 

No illegal is to go to jail or be returned to Mexico or wherever unless they are caught in the process of committing a crime - and coming into the US is NO LONGER considered a crime; Hence, the trespassing law.

WHat Ernie is talking about is the BRACERO program whereby Mexicans could come into the US legally to work on farms, mainly in the souhtwest, to help with harvests. Then they would go home. No issue. 

Always a controvercial program, it ended in in 1964 under President Johnson (D) and with it came the rise of the United Farm Workers. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

blooba said:


> It's easy,just take
> Number of people on welfare minus total citizens = illegal immigrants....lol
> If their able to get their share of the pie without fear of deportation they will love it. :icecream:
> 
> Dang never ending pies causin all this trouble


English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able" 

Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> WHat Ernie is talking about is the BRACERO program whereby Mexicans could come into the US legally to work on farms, mainly in the souhtwest, to help with harvests. Then they would go home. No issue.
> 
> Always a controvercial program, it ended in in 1964 under President Johnson (D) and with it came the rise of the United Farm Workers.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program


Quote from your referenced article:"The advantages of hiring illegal workers were that they were willing to work for lower wages, without support, health coverage or in many cases legal means to address abuses by the employers for fear of deportation. Nevertheless, conditions for the poor and unemployed within Mexico were such that illegal employment was attractive enough to motivate many to leave in search of work within the United States illegally, even if that directly competed with the legal workers within the bracero program leading to its discontinuation." SO WHAT HAS CHANGED? Abuse remains rampant.

The CONTROVERCIAL PROGRAM that you mention also has another element which continues to be ignored when we mention that era. Who has the ten percent withheld and the interest it would have grown?


----------



## Pizza Guy (Jun 5, 2006)

LaManchaPaul said:


> English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able"
> 
> Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.




"Thatâs why California officials, extremely generous with tax dollars in the past, are trying to find a way to eliminate welfare payments to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. The move, which has caused outrage among the stateâs powerful open borders lobby, would save a much-needed $640 million a year."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jul/illegal-aliens-get-monthly-welfare-checks-0


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

LaManchaPaul said:


> ..Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.


Being a grammar Nazi - Minus any credibility

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf

Page 5, Opening statement for the "Results in Brief"

You can dig deeper if you wish


----------



## TC (Jun 22, 2005)

LaManchaPaul said:


> English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able"
> 
> Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.


OMG...I almost peed in my pants laughing so hard!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you completely and totally serious?!?!?!? Do you really believe that illegals get no welfare?!?!?!?!?!?!??

OMG>>>>>FALLING OFF THE CHAIR NOW!!!!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able"
> 
> Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.


I guess a person on welfare and making $16,000/yr doesn't bring home more money than someone making $38,000/yr either do they?


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

I've posted this before, here it is once more.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2469688/posts

"Los Angeles County, the nationâs most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. *In January alone, anchor babies born to the countyâs illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits.* At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliensâ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks. 


.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

WV Hillbilly said:


> If we really wanted to get rid of illegals it would be fairly simple & fairly inexpensive . If everyone who hired them , rented to them , ect , faced a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for doing so they would be gone pronto . .


Republicans would never support it, given the numbers of Republicans that tend to be employers and/or slum lords. So on the one hand Republicans complain about illegals while on the other hand profitting by them; on this and many other issues, the Republican party is the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Being a grammar Nazi - Minus any credibility
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98030.pdf
> 
> ...


As I can see on this and the above posts' referenced links, I stand that welfare isn't paid for illegals. 

The welfare is for American kids, not illegals... 

a Nazi?? :umno: As Americans, we should know basic English.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2010)

Haggis said:


> Republicans would never support it, given the numbers of Republicans that tend to be employers and/or slum lords. So on the one hand Republicans complain about illegals while on the other hand profitting by them; on this and many other issues, the Republican party is the definition of hypocrisy.


I don't see much difference in either party . They love to call themselves public servants & I call them parasites on society . They all are jockeying for political advantage & couldn't care less what's good for America as long as they can get reelected . It amazes me that people keep voting in the same bloodsuckers term after term . I think they should have term limits .


----------



## mamadelbosque (Sep 29, 2008)

Honestly, if you want to stop illegal immigration, you should go after the EMPLOYERS not the EMPLOYEES. Put huge fines on hiring (knowingly or unknowingly) illegal immigrants - 100,000 or 1,000,000 per offense and I seriously doubt you'll see too many chicken farms hiring them. Cause' if they get busted, they'd owe millions. And, if nobody'll hire them, then they can't make any money, so they might's well go home. 

But if we're just going to keep punishing THEM, and not the people who are more than happy to hire them and pay them, then they're just going to keep coming. Doesn't matter what draconian laws you pass, if there are people willing to hire them, they're just going to keep coming.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Arizona DOES go after businesses that hire illegals - so do other states. This is an article from 2008 - Case taken to the 9th Circuit Court where it was upheld.

illegals.http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=885576a3d8c43160ed161edb2247b6ca

That's part of the issue. Welfare should be for US citizens. Did you know that the most crime in AZ is identity theft?? By illegals. I researched & posted that on a former thread. As far as illegals NOt getting welfare - what do you call free ER services??

And, as we're being nitty - Yes, I read the article I refrenced - that's why I posted it, as I felt it gave a _fair_ overview of the Bracero program. 

Please don't be plebeian & tangential when discussing thoughts. We do understand, even if someone makes a grammar error. It makes you sound like a liberal - if you can't argue facts, go for something personal.

Sheeesh!


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

Shoot them. Word would get out, problem solved.


Sorry but I am tired of illegals coming in to MY country, and then raping it.



Jeff


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Illegals not get welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing and job assistance? What happy little country do you live in?

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4905987446

They even get workers comp if injured on their illegal jobs.
http://www.alipac.us/article-5065--0-0.html

http://www.ojjpac.org/
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303d.asp
http://immigrationstance.diggersrea...on_immigration_reform_and_illegal_aliens.html
http://rightvoices.com/2009/01/29/welfare-for-illegal-aliens-why-not/
http://www.cis.org/LegalServicesCorporation-FederalFundingImmigrantActivists

Do you still think illegal immigrants don't get public assistance????


----------



## mamadelbosque (Sep 29, 2008)

Maybe they do 'go after' businesses that hire illegals. But obviously not enough, with strict enough fines, else nobody would hire them. The disincentive to hire illegals should be HUGE if we really don't want them here. But they're obviously not - its obviously still worth their while to risk getting caught else they wouldn't be hiring them. :shrug


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

LaManchaPaul said:


> As I can see on this and the above posts' referenced links, I stand that welfare isn't paid for illegals.
> 
> The welfare is for American kids, not illegals...
> 
> a Nazi?? :umno: As Americans, we should know basic English.


Paid "for" and "gets" (your original request) are two different things. While much of the welfare is paid because of anchor babies it is paid to the head of household. Who is an illegal alien.

As far as the English, great when can we start requiring immigrants to learn it?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I was in Arizona last week, down by Sierra Vista. There was a HUGE border patrol presence. Road blocks, helicopters, planes ... even a dirigible. A border patrol BLIMP! I was of the mind that the government was doing all they could on the topic right up to the point where I was leaving and I went through the roadblock myself.
> 
> They had trucks, barricades, and a couple of dozen armed agents standing around. I pulled up and got out my wallet, thinking I'd have to show some sort of ID to get through. The agent asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" I said, "Um, yes" and he said, "Have a nice day."
> 
> ...




The last time I was south of the border I got mugged & relieved of my wallet . When I tried to come back across the agent asked for my ID . I explained what had happened but told him I could prove I was an American . He wanted to know how so I told him I had two tattoos on my butt . A tattoo of George Bush on one cheek & a tattoo of Ronald Reagan on the other cheek . He said he had to see that so I dropped my pants & bent over . He said he believed I was an American & I could go on home to Chicago . I asked him what made him think I lived in Chicago & he said he instantly recognized Obama there in the middle between George & Ronald .


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Are you an American citizen?

Si.

Okay go on through. 

I suspect they don't take a person's word if they look like they are Mexican.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

*JeffNY said, âShoot them. Word would get out, problem solved.â *You would have made a good Roman soldier some centuries ago (remembered this Good Friday evening). Wasnât it written in the Bible that Jesus Christ said something like, âwhat you do to the least among you, you do unto me?â

*Wolf Mom said, âPlease don't be plebeian & tangential when discussing thoughts. We do understand, even if someone makes a grammar error. It makes you sound like a liberal - if you can't argue facts, go for something personal.â *How can one argue facts? By definition, facts are in fact, facts. I canât find my funkandwagnalls to look up the personal-feeling barbs that you tossed down toward me.

*WY White Wolf said, âPaid "for" and "gets" (your original request) are two different things. While much of the welfare is paid because of anchor babies it is paid to the head of household. Who is an illegal alien. As far as the English, great when can we start requiring immigrants to learn it?â *Tags like anchor babies and illegal alien are hurtful and oppressive. Their use makes the speaker feel more important during judgment-laced conversation. Woe unto my kind when itâs your turn to be god. 

PERDONA A TU PUEBLO, SENOR. Forgive us Father.

It is fact that US citizens are family to undocumented immigrants. You and I support some of those children via welfare. However, to not allow the undocumented to fully realize his/her potential to grow our economy, our system helps to feed that issue. To not allow the undocumented to become âdocumentedâ doesnât feel good to me. One would think that our people would like for our government âto knowâ who is living among us. HOW can it be so hard to CLOSE THE BORDER and then document the workers. As another poster alluded, Republicans and Democrats have had ample time, while it power, to close the border. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

LaManchaPaul said:


> English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able"
> 
> Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant.


Punctuation error:- "It certainly doesn't happen in GA", should be followed by a comma. 
Georgia is a proper noun, and even though you settled for an abbreviation thereof, it still requires the comma in the context in which it was used. Without the comma, you are guilty of executing a run-on sentence. 
Furthermore, the fragment, "regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant", qualifies the basic sentence, "It certainly doesn't happen in GA", in such a way that punctuation is also required. Therefore, from a more critical point of view, you screwed up twice.

Now this is a serious forum.

Proper grammar and sentence structure are crucial if we are going to avoid unnecessary confrontations due to misunderstanding.
Next time, put forth a little more effort and bring your point to the table clearly.


Ernie, the shared memories of your youth certainly bring a sort of balance to the table.
It is too bad that those days are, for now, behind us.
I have long held my own opinion that if one color of man doesn't want to work for a price, another color of man might.
Then again, color may just be a convenient cover for laziness, pride or arrogance.

The only detriment that a Mexican or any other immigrant can be to the system, is to tax the system.
Maybe we need to demonopolize the system and just let supply and demand, offer and consent, have the rule again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ninny said:


> I've posted this before, here it is once more.
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2469688/posts
> 
> "Los Angeles County, the nationâs most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. *In January alone, anchor babies born to the countyâs illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits.* At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliensâ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks.


Those aren't illegal aliens receiving aid, it's legal American citizen babies.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Woops, thanks LaManchaPaul, "can't argue facts should have read argue _with_ facts. That does make a difference. The rest still stands. 

As far as you not wanting to use correct descriptive terms, "anchor babies and illegal aliens", how can reality be "hurtful and opressive"? Unless you, like the current administration, don't want to use certain words and would rather soft-soap reality. Truth is truth - illegal entry into the US is illegal.

Come into the US legally, I'll do everything in my power to help you; come in illegally & I'll do everything I can to deport you. It has nothing to do with giving an illegal a chance. What part of illegal don't you understand?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> *JeffNY said, &#8220;Shoot them. Word would get out, problem solved.&#8221; *You would have made a good Roman soldier some centuries ago (remembered this Good Friday evening). Wasn&#8217;t it written in the Bible that Jesus Christ said something like, &#8220;what you do to the least among you, you do unto me?&#8221;


 What happens if I try to cross the South Korean border? I get shot. Will I try it, Heck no. If we would start shooting word would get around real quick and there wouldn't be nearly as many trying and once the Border Patrol wasn't flooded with people they could detain the few that tried.

So you can quote the Bible all you want but if I cross a border illegally I would expect to get shot. Why don't we do the same? 


LaManchaPaul said:


> *
> WY White Wolf said, &#8220;Paid "for" and "gets" (your original request) are two different things. While much of the welfare is paid because of anchor babies it is paid to the head of household. Who is an illegal alien. As far as the English, great when can we start requiring immigrants to learn it?&#8221; Tags like anchor babies and illegal alien are hurtful and oppressive. Their use makes the speaker feel more important during judgment-laced conversation. Woe unto my kind when it&#8217;s your turn to be god.*


* Awwww.... poor CRIMINALS are getting their feelings hurt. Crossing a border illegally is a CRIME . Would you feel the same about "name calling" to rapists and murderers? There IS a legal way to cross the border,my family came across LEGALLY. Why can't they?



LaManchaPaul said:



It is fact that US citizens are family to undocumented immigrants. You and I support some of those children via welfare. However, to not allow the undocumented to fully realize his/her potential to grow our economy, our system helps to feed that issue. To not allow the undocumented to become &#8220;documented&#8221; doesn&#8217;t feel good to me. One would think that our people would like for our government &#8220;to know&#8221; who is living among us. HOW can it be so hard to CLOSE THE BORDER and then document the workers. As another poster alluded, Republicans and Democrats have had ample time, while it power, to close the border. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?

Click to expand...

Shall we give murderers and rapists a free pass? A crime is a crime and until the law is changed it should be followed. If they came across LEGALLY(work visa,asylum,ect.) and followed the laws they can apply for citizenship LEGALLY. If they broke one law whats keeping them from breaking another?

Sure the process for immigration and citizenship is screwed up with all the red tape BUT the law is the law for a reason. Ship out the illegals and replace them with legals if need be. 

What would you propose to "close" the border? 
Build a 100 ft wall? Who's gonna pay for it?
Hire 20 million Border Agents? Who's gonna pay for it?
The reason that its so hard is that there are millions coming across the border all the time that is why the Border Patrol mainly just focuses on the ones carrying drugs. 
A few drones equipped with auto targeting machine guns would solve all our problems but you are opposed to that idea.


Forerunner said:



Punctuation error:- "It certainly doesn't happen in GA", should be followed by a comma. 
Georgia is a proper noun, and even though you settled for an abbreviation thereof, it still requires the comma in the context in which it was used. Without the comma, you are guilty of executing a run-on sentence. 
Furthermore, the fragment, "regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant", qualifies the basic sentence, "It certainly doesn't happen in GA", in such a way that punctuation is also required. Therefore, from a more critical point of view, you screwed up twice.

Now this is a serious forum.

Proper grammar and sentence structure are crucial if we are going to avoid unnecessary confrontations due to misunderstanding.
Next time, put forth a little more effort and bring your point to the table clearly.

Click to expand...

Now don't be stooping down to their level. Sure some grammatical and spelling errors will always happen(even to the best of us) but there is no reason to try to belittle someone because of it. Some of the best engineers I have seen couldn't read or write very well. I am good with math but hate writing and grammar. Don't hold something against someone because of a weakness, you have to look at their strengths to really judge someone. 



Forerunner said:



The only detriment that a Mexican or any other immigrant can be to the system, is to tax the system.
Maybe we need to demonopolize the system and just let supply and demand, offer and consent, have the rule again.

Click to expand...

I believe that also. One of the reasons they are ILLEGAL immigrants is because they couldn't prove they were able to contribute to society. That is a requirement for legal immigration.
Is the bureaucratic definition too strict on what they consider a "contribution"? Maybe, but that requirement is there for a reason. 
Do we give out too much welfare? Definitely, but until we cut that spending this will never be a viable option.*


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

blooba said:


> Now don't be stooping down to their level. Sure some grammatical and spelling errors will always happen(even to the best of us) but there is no reason to try to belittle someone because of it. Some of the best engineers I have seen couldn't read or write very well. I am good with math but hate writing and grammar. Don't hold something against someone because of a weakness, you have to look at their strengths to really judge someone.


You mean you missed my sarcasm ?

I even left myself open with a couple well-placed errors for the next critic to come along and devour.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Come into the US legally, I'll do everything in my power to help you; come in illegally & I'll do everything I can to deport you. It has nothing to do with giving an illegal a chance. What part of illegal don't you understand?


Just for the record, all Mexicans who enter the USA enter legally. Mexican nationals are allowed to enter this country to shop. Most just go to Wal-Mart and return home, but some venture north to find jobs. Going beyond the border town areas and seeking employment is illegal, but they still entered the USA legally.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

LaManchaPaul said:


> English error: -25 points. "their able" to "they're able"
> 
> .


Obviously he is not an immigrant 



> Here's an open challenge to any blooba to show anywhere in the US where an illegal immigrant gets welfare. :fussin: It certainly doesn't happen in GA regardless of the need of the illegal immigrant


Shhhhh .... you are forcing him to think


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Thanks *Forerunner.. "Punctuation error:- "It certainly doesn't happen in GA", should be followed by a comma."* English is such a difficult language. :hammer: How many points did I lose? 

*Wolf Mom*, The US Gov't talks about closing the border but hasn't. Hang, it does not even try. The froth of this anger-driven topic is thick. I didn't make any inroads with the 'hateful terms' post. I can't answer your 'how' question. It feels hurtful and the results are opressive.  

Here is a genuine "how" question. How would you handle the deportation of the parents of a US-citizen baby or child? Really, I am just as opposed to illegal entry as anyone. However, the children shouldn't suffer, be deprived of parents because of deportation, or sent to another country to be reared by deported parents. Consider that Mr. Obama wanted your input - how would you handle those parents? Paul


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

mamadelbosque said:


> Maybe they do 'go after' businesses that hire illegals. But obviously not enough, with strict enough fines, else nobody would hire them. The disincentive to hire illegals should be HUGE if we really don't want them here. But they're obviously not - its obviously still worth their while to risk getting caught else they wouldn't be hiring them. :shrug



Oklahoma passed such law about a year ago. Wreaked havoc on the local economy.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> You mean you missed my sarcasm ?
> 
> I even left myself open with a couple well-placed errors for the next critic to come along and devour.


Well I was talking to both of you. Mainly not you though...lol As long as the point has gotten across what does it matter? 

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Forerunner said:


> You mean you missed my sarcasm ?
> 
> I even left myself open with a couple well-placed errors for the next critic to come along and devour.


Oh my, I missed your sarcasm.... oh my goodness, I also missed your well-placed errors.:grin:


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Just for the record, all Mexicans who enter the USA enter legally. Mexican nationals are allowed to enter this country to shop. Most just go to Wal-Mart and return home, but some venture north to find jobs. Going beyond the border town areas and seeking employment is illegal, but they still entered the USA legally.


WRONG......Entering this country LEGALLY is through the checkpoints.....Many are barred from entering because they have already broken the law like staying illegally,crossing the border illegally,importing drugs, ect. So they cross the border ILLEGALLY. There's a BIG difference.
Nat Geo has a good show called Border Wars that puts a Hollywood spin on the Border Patrol but they do show some of the reality of it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/120404/border-wars-no-end-in-sight?c=News-and-Information#s-p1-so-i0


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> WRONG......Entering this country LEGALLY is through the checkpoints.....Many are barred from entering because they have already broken the law like staying illegally,crossing the border illegally,importing drugs, ect. So they cross the border ILLEGALLY. There's a BIG difference.
> Nat Geo has a good show called Border Wars that puts a Hollywood spin on the Border Patrol but they do show some of the reality of it.
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/120404/border-wars-no-end-in-sight?c=News-and-Information#s-p1-so-i0


As a long-time Arizona resident I've crossed the US/Mexico border many, many times. No one cares when you leave the US and arrive in Mexico, you just walk in. Mexican authorities don't check people upon leaving either.

Upon entering the USA you will be stopped to be interviewed and your belongings inspected by US Customs. The border patrol is there to observe, but don't normally get involved in the interview and inspection process.

I haven't crossed the border since new laws have been in place, but the way it used to work with Mexican nationals was that they showed Mexican ID and were allowed to enter. I never saw an agent check a Mexican national's name against a computer, since the wave-through was far too fast for that. In fact it always surprised me at how much scrutiny US citizens were put under when reentering the US, while Mexican nationals simply flashed ID and were waved through.

I'm not saying that the "border war" isn't going on, since it unquestionably is, but it doesn't involve Mexican nationals just wanting to enter for economic reasons. The "border wars" are for two main groups, 1) people trying to bring contraband (mainly drugs) into the US, and 2) other Central American immigrants (from Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.) who can't cross at the border at will the way Mexican nationals can.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Those aren't illegal aliens receiving aid, it's legal American citizen babies.



You know, I used to have a dog that I swore was the dumbest animal on the planet. Guess I was wrong.:hysterical:


.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Aw shucks - then I guess all the Mexicans (and south americans) climbing our Border fence and digging tunnels under the border are coming across the border legally? I think NOT. It's pie in they sky to think that all the raids on houses in Phoeinx are just rounding up South Americans...Border Wars that Blooba spoke of, really needs to be watched by some of you here. 

As far as those babies born in the US of illegal entry parents - I'd void that law. Liberals try to use that sob story here every once in a while. People need to learn to suffer the consequences of their actions - babies go with parents BACK to where they came from. 

Mexico does NOT have the same immigration laws the US has. If we had what Mexico has, the US would save billions of dollars!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Aw shucks - then I guess all the Mexicans (and south americans) climbing our Border fence and digging tunnels under the border are coming across the border legally? I think NOT. It's pie in they sky to think that all the raids on houses in Phoeinx are just rounding up South Americans...Border Wars that Blooba spoke of, really needs to be watched by some of you here.


I didn't say that. Of course Mexican nationals who live in Phoenix are there illegally and subject to deportation. But unless they are bringing-in contraband they have no reason to climb a fence or dig a tunnel, since they can walk right in the front door at Nogales to shop.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

An alternative to the no win problem we have is to help Mexico clean up itself. Illegals need to stay home & use the energy they expend skulking around the US underground and help clean up their own country.

The money we pour into illegals, drugs, border fences, etc. that aren't working could be used to help Mexico clean up the cartels and the corrupt Meican government. After all, we tell Israel and every other country what to do - why can't we at least help our neighbor?

PS: just a few days ago an illegal Mexican killed a rancher who had a history of HELPING illegals who crossed his land. 

There's an old saying that continuing to do the same thing over & over that doesn't work is "crazy". Maybe it's time to try something new - and giving amnesty is not new....


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Nevada, you're right - if they are just here to shop & go home, yes they are welcome, and are here legally - _most aren't_. Bringing in contraband is just a part of it. They're here because they need the money the US gives them. They drain our economy through jobs, heallthcare and education. That's why I suggested an alternative....


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Here is a genuine "how" question. How would you handle the deportation of the parents of a US-citizen baby or child? Really, I am just as opposed to illegal entry as anyone. However, the children shouldn't suffer, be deprived of parents because of deportation, or sent to another country to be reared by deported parents. Consider that Mr. Obama wanted your input - how would you handle those parents? Paul


Tell them who do you want to take care of the kids? If they say noone else then they take them back to Mexico with them. If a US citizen wants to adopt it or whatever then good for it but ideally they should revoke that law so no more babies can be "anchored"


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I didn't say that. Of course Mexican nationals who live in Phoenix are there illegally and subject to deportation. But unless they are bringing-in contraband they have no reason to climb a fence or dig a tunnel, since they can walk right in the front door at Nogales to shop.


You'd be surprised at how many cross illegally without a load of drugs. Watch that show Border Wars at that link I provided if you have broadband. They usually show you how many come across in just that little scouted area every night. Remember that is only about 100 miles per agent team of about 7500 miles of land border and 30,000 miles of water borders that they have patrol.

Mexican nationals ARE supposed to have a visa to enter the US now. When they are convicted of a crime their visa will be revoked. Why do you think the "coyote" market is a multi million(possibly billion) dollar business.


----------



## farmergirl (Aug 2, 2005)

Wolf mom said:


> An alternative to the no win problem we have is to help Mexico clean up itself. Illegals need to stay home & use the energy they expend skulking around the US underground and help clean up their own country.
> 
> The money we pour into illegals, drugs, border fences, etc. that aren't working could be used to help Mexico clean up the cartels and the corrupt Meican government. After all, we tell Israel and every other country what to do - why can't we at least help our neighbor?
> 
> ...


At this point, I wouldn't want to live in Mexico either. I can't blame people for wanting to escape poverty and danger. I agree fully that we need a way to tax people who are earning money so that we can better provide social services for them and their children when needed. But I do not think it reasonable to expect that Mexicans who run the real risk of being murdered or dying of starvation, or seeing these things happen to their kin, could be enticed to stay in Mexico with money alone. Perhaps we should divert all of that defense spending and military presence that is being wasted half a world away and send it instead to help re-stabilize our neighbors.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

*Wolf Mom said, *âAs far as those babies born in the US of illegal entry parents - I'd void that law. Liberals try to use that sob story here every once in a while. People need to learn to suffer the consequences of their actions - babies go with parents BACK to where they came from.â

*blooba said,* âTell them who do you want to take care of the kids? If they say noone else then they take them back to Mexico with them. If a US citizen wants to adopt it or whatever then good for it but ideally they should revoke that law so no more babies can be "anchored".â

These posts are in response to a serious question about a serious problem of US children born into a family of undocumented parents and siblings. 

Thank goodness Mr. Obama wouldnât take your advice, Wolf Mom. I donât think you or the President can simply void the Constitution just yet. Certainly you can not do so in order to enact vengeance on children; as even tea party members would object. If compassion for children is Liberal, then paint me with that brush. I donât see myself as liberal, but on the other hand you canât see your fanaticism. Perhaps we are even.

Take kids from loving parents and adopt them out to a Citizen of the US. Really, blooba, are you saying that? Really? 

Golly. And someone on here tagged me a Nazi. The spew of hatred on this thread is so very sad. Even sadder is that I have no words to use that could help these posters see what their messages say of them as individuals. It is like someone loosened the lid up on a bottle of soda, my post shook that bottle and posters are allowed with impunity, to vent. 

Another thought is that I would wager that 99% if not 100% consider themselves Christian; even the poster who wants the undocumented shot on sight. WWJD with these little children?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Thank goodness Mr. Obama wouldn&#8217;t take your advice, Wolf Mom. I don&#8217;t think you or the President can simply void the Constitution just yet. Certainly you can not do so in order to enact vengeance on children; as even tea party members would object. If compassion for children is Liberal, then paint me with that brush. I don&#8217;t see myself as liberal, but on the other hand you can&#8217;t see your fanaticism. Perhaps we are even.
> 
> Take kids from loving parents and adopt them out to a Citizen of the US. Really, blooba, are you saying that? Really?
> 
> ...


You mean WWOD? What Would Obama Do?

Well I don't classify myself as a Christian but Jesus would want them to stay with their parents SO off to Mexico they would go BUT they do have the option of being adopted here. Less than 10% of adopted kids in the U.S. COME from the U.S. maybe that would raise our percentages of us helping ourselves instead of China.

I never once said they HAD to be adopted but that is their choice. If Mexico is so bad we do have asylum laws in place for that reason. 

If the wheelbarrow is broken just don't prop it up with amnesty, you have to FIX IT for it to work the way its supposed to. Those people have broken the law we don't need anymore criminals. We already have 1 in every 31 adults in the prison system. Why add millions more criminals?

FYI: Even Hitler only locked up or killed about 1% of their population.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

blooba said:


> You mean WWOD? What Would Obama Do?
> 
> Well I don't classify myself as a Christian but Jesus would want them to stay with their parents SO off to Mexico they would go BUT they do have the option of being adopted here. Less than 10% of adopted kids in the U.S. COME from the U.S. maybe that would raise our percentages of us helping ourselves instead of China.
> 
> ...


I again find myself without sufficient words, adequately strung together, to respond to your post.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Yuppers, Paul - BUT the XIV Amendment is open to interpretation. That's where all this "babies born or nauralized into the US" nonsence came from. If you read the history of how these amendments came about, this was not what was meant. As far as this presidency, he's trampling on the constitution and it's amendments. Look at the law suits over the HC bill. 

"Compassion for children" has nothing to do with it. Comassion is a "bleeding heart liberal term" said to make others look bad & those who use it morally superior. Not a legal term. I don't believe any country has a law like this - we shouldn't subject our country to this costly interpretation either. 

Look at the economic costs to the US. Like I said, suffer the consequences of your actions - IF you're pregnant, you are responsible for your child, born or unborn. Go home, Ms. Illegal, & take your child with you.

BTW: Paul, I notice that you did not bother to reply to my alternative suggestion to _help_ Mexico rather than continue this crazy slippery slope we're on.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

If you were an illegle in this country would you come forward to get a green card if you were also commiting other crimes?
Mexico does need help, And we are giving it to them. Hillary was down there trying to find out what we can do to help. It's quite a mess.
As far as anchor baby's go. The mothers do it on purpose, they are the ones who are putting the kids in a situation where they could be seperated, not us.


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

blooba said:


> Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.


I loved that article. It amazes me that the paragraph is so easy to understand.


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

Encouraging others to come to this nation illegally won't make things better for those who are already here. Since we're in economic meltdown mode, it would be nice if there was less competition for jobs.

I see an awful lot of hispanic customers using food stamp cards to buy groceries. But if other people were working the same jobs, they'd be poor enough for food stamps too. In fact, with the current state of the economy, I am seeing more people using food stamps.

I'm most uncomfortable with customers who have very long finger nails, who *it seems to me* are using the length of their nails to prove that they are too good to be working, who then whip out a food stamp card to pay for their food. Their false pride just bothers me.

My biggest complaint about hispanics is that some don't bother to use english when speaking in public settings. I feel strongly that they and their kids should learn both languages, english for their public life and spanish to remember their heritage. My point applies to anyone who learns english as a second language.


(btw, I'm more or less centrist in ideology and end up choosing either liberal or conservative positions on individual issues)


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> Yuppers, Paul - BUT the XIV Amendment is open to interpretation. That's where all this "babies born or nauralized into the US" nonsence came from. If you read the history of how these amendments came about, this was not what was meant. As far as this presidency, he's trampling on the constitution and it's amendments. *Look at the law suits over the HC bill.*
> 
> *"Compassion for children" has nothing to do with it. Comassion is a "bleeding heart liberal term" said to make others look bad & those who use it morally superior.* Not a legal term. I don't believe any country has a law like this - we shouldn't subject our country to this costly interpretation either.
> 
> ...


Certainly you understand that to file lawsuits does not make an issue constitutional, regardless of how many suits get filed. Only if a suit survives to the Supreme Court AND a majority of the Justices agree, will the suit prove that the law is unconstitutional. 

GA's Attorney General summed it up regarding the frivolous lawsuits that so many statesâ AGâs have rushed to write. Paraphrasing T. Baker, âI looked at the Constitution, I searched and researched, I read the suits being filed across the country only to find that there is nothing unconstitutional about the HC bill. Congress has broad powers to enact laws under the Commerce Clause. A suit likely wouldnât succeed, but would consume significant amounts of taxpayersâ hard-earned money in the process..â So, as far as this topic, weâll have to wait for the âthenâ Supreme Court to interpret and rule. If there were a question that the HC law was unconstitutional, then the ACLU would be all over it. However, try to force a US citizen to leave the US or âbe adopted by a citizenâ and the ACLU would come out of the woodwork. 

Your own writing makes you look bad, not my posting âcompassion for childrenâ comments. As well, I certainly donât profess moral superiority. Heavens knows I am a wretched human. I do respect family and I love children and babies of any species. 

I didnât respond to your comment about your proposed US interference in Mexicoâs domestic issues because it was off topic. You and I were discussing how to handle the US problem of children of an undocumented family. This is a real problem, right now. I didnât see your hypothetical situation as germane to this debate.

I really donât understand how people can shout to honor the Constitution on one hand yet whimsically seek to deny its application to all who fall under it. The concept smacks of disingenuousness and hypocrisy. Wolf Mom, I urge you to not allow my words to cause you to not see the issue logically. Hypothetically, if for whatever reason, it were constitutional to exile a US minor to a foreign country, how can we constitutionally allow aliens to transport a minor citizen abroad? How can we convey that power to an illegal?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> BTW: Paul, I notice that you did not bother to reply to my alternative suggestion to _help_ Mexico rather than continue this crazy slippery slope we're on.


You wanna know my solution to Mexico?

Everyone bad mouths NAFTA for shipping our jobs to other countries but I think its a good thing. Our problem is the free trade to China,India and all the other non neighboring countries. Wasn't there a verse in the Bible about "Thy help the neighbor before someone on the other side of the world"...lol told ya I'm not a Christian. If they are a major economic power like the US they wont need to cross our border. And getting rid of the corrupt government will help too but we need to get rid of ours first.

BUT we cannot tell China to screw off since we are spending ourselves into such debt. They and the arabian countries own almost all of our debt. The key is to get rid of our debt not rack up more!


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

We're beginning to go around in circles. No more.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2010)

For those people who are worried about anchor babies & children being separated from their illegal parents if the parents were to be deported , I say if the parents were worth half a crap they would take their children home with them .


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

ââ¦*a time comes when silence is betrayal*...â Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I trust that I will never tire of defending the children who have no voice, or their parents who have no power, against the shameful hatred of my fellow countrymen. 
Shameful. :bdh:


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> &#8220;&#8230;*a time comes when silence is betrayal*...&#8221; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> 
> I trust that I will never tire of defending the children who have no voice, or their parents who have no power, against the shameful hatred of my fellow countrymen.
> Shameful. :bdh:


THE PARENTS HAD THE POWER TO STAY IN THEIR COUNTRY AND NOT BREAK OUR LAWS!!!!

Of course they have no power in the matter.

From your toilet paper roll called "The Constitution"

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, _*and CITIZENS of the United States*_, or in any way abridged, _*except for participation in rebellion, or other CRIME*_, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I have a good friend who just recently had to flee the United States. He's from China but has been here since 1989 when he came here on a student visa. He's been working on citizenship for over ten years now but the State Department (under multiple administrations) stalled and stalled until about three months ago when they not only denied renewing his work visa but suddenly announced that he was to be sent back to his country of origin.

Why? China lists him as a criminal and State Department policy is not to allow criminals into this country. What crime did he commit? He threw a rock at a soldier in 1989 at Tiananmen Square. His parents bribed someone to get him out of the country on a passport. He arrived here with some financial resources, went to college, and now works as a consultant. When he got the letter from the State Department he broke his lease and fled across the border into Canada rather than risk being deported back to China where he would be imprisoned or killed.

While we need to fix illegal immigration, we also need to fix the LEGAL immigration process being run by numbskulls in the Federal bureaucracy.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I have a good friend who just recently had to flee the United States. He's from China but has been here since 1989 when he came here on a student visa. He's been working on citizenship for over ten years now but the State Department (under multiple administrations) stalled and stalled until about three months ago when they not only denied renewing his work visa but suddenly announced that he was to be sent back to his country of origin.
> 
> Why? China lists him as a criminal and State Department policy is not to allow criminals into this country. What crime did he commit? He threw a rock at a soldier in 1989 at Tiananmen Square. His parents bribed someone to get him out of the country on a passport. He arrived here with some financial resources, went to college, and now works as a consultant. When he got the letter from the State Department he broke his lease and fled across the border into Canada rather than risk being deported back to China where he would be imprisoned or killed.
> 
> While we need to fix illegal immigration, we also need to fix the LEGAL immigration process being run by numbskulls in the Federal bureaucracy.


Well in reality he did break the law, what would happen if you threw a rock at our soldiers? 

I have a better example, an old friend of mine's dad ran a casino down in Columbia. The Columbian cartel tried to force him into bribing the local officials since that is customary down there. Well he refused so they gunned him down in front of his 8 year old son(my friend). His family was able to flee the country and got asylum in the US Have been trying to unsucessfully gain citizenship due to the red tape. The state dept is trying to say since the father (dead) is no longer running the casino there is no more threat. Meanwhile the family has been living here for 13 years and now they are wanting to deport them even though they have been trying to gain citizenship and still may last I knew.

So yea our system is screwed up BUT that does not mean we should give criminals amnesty.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You won't hear me arguing for amnesty, but political asylum for dissidents? I'll argue for that. My friend firmly believes that his application was denied because the United States doesn't want to anger China. That's what I've come to believe as well.

We could use a few more people here willing to throw rocks at communists.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Ernie said:


> You won't hear me arguing for amnesty, but political asylum for dissidents? I'll argue for that. My friend firmly believes that his application was denied because the United States doesn't want to anger China. That's what I've come to believe as well.
> 
> We could use a few more people here willing to throw rocks at communists.


Well of course we don't want to make China mad. They own $1 TRILLION of our treasury securities. How good of an arm does he have? The White House is fenced off pretty good.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Yuppers, Ernie. I worked with a Doctor who was being given the same runaround. It was so bad, & he was such a great Dr., I offered to marry him so he could stay here. 

In another issue, a person running against McCain for senator is running on the immigration issue & has some great ideas for stopping it and anchor babies.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

blooba said:


> *Well*.


Letâs see:
#10: English grammar at less than an illegalâs 5th grader.
#40: Promotion that the US government should compete with the North Koreanâs on border crossing. 
#40: Machine-gun use on drones. Diatribe on spelling errors as if the slaughter of the beautiful English language is justified. Subject/verb errors or using a subject and verb (theyâre) as opposed to a pronoun (their)are due to spelling.
#59: Not a Christian. Hitlerâs murder of millions somehow is related to the context of children of illegal immigrants (after the above posts' promotion of violence). 
#70: Our Constitution is a roll of toilet paper.
#74: Insinuation that communists live at the White House.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Let&#8217;s see:
> #10: English grammar at less than an illegal&#8217;s 5th grader. *Maybe a few missed puncuation marks but not bad for a 6th grade dropout*
> #40: Promotion that the US government should compete with the North Korean&#8217;s on border crossing.
> *Why not? We all agree illegal immigration is a problem.*
> ...


ahhh, so you can't find a justifiable leg to stand on so you resort to personal attacks. Thats fine, I can handle it.

You'd better read a little better if you really believe those words you are spewing.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

blooba said:


> LaManchaPaul said:
> 
> 
> > #59: Not a Christian.
> ...


After further thought I figured I should clarify this since I know there are alot of religious people on this site.

I am not saying that there is or is not a god or other religious being(i.e. Jesus,Allah,Muhammad,Judah or whatever other being you worship) 
I believe what I see and as some would say I haven't "seen the light" of religion.
I know the possibility is out there of an afterlife or reincarnation and the way I look at it is as long as I have converted one person from the demonized taxing/spending lifestyle I have done my good deed and shall be taken care of in any afterlife if there is one.

I have converted many more than just my one so I should be alright. It's the rest of you that haven't "seen the light" with your socialist/communist lifestyles that I'm worried about but I can only do so much.

If there is an afterlife I hope I see you all there although I know the reality of it is some will not be present though.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

blooba said:


> ahhh, so you can't find a justifiable leg to stand on so you resort to personal attacks. Thats fine, I can handle it.
> 
> You'd better read a little better if you really believe those words you are spewing.


Your posts&#8217; numbers were referenced. I apologize for the comment on the first line, as I should not have compared a young illegal's English skills to yours. The other words were your comments in paraphrase and not personal on my part.

Your spin on the Constitution in this post is incredible. :stars: I defended what you called toilet paper as opposed to your post #55 promoting " to revoke that law" which defines and protects a US citizen. It&#8217;s a real quagmire for you and Wolf mom. How to suspend the Constitution for some else&#8217;s child, but keep it on a child you favor. Then the problem occurs as to how to retrofit that change to children you object to.

While I thought that I was breaking the circular responses with Wolf mom by stating that &#8220;if&#8221; it could be done, then &#8216;how&#8217; to convey the power over a minor US citizen to an illegal; she chose to discontinue the debate.

You promote using drones to auto machine-gun people, stoning our President (#74 & #77) and many more unbelievably irrational ideals. I&#8217;m gonna pull a Wolf mom. No more.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Aw, come on - it's the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Research what the founding fathers said - them come back - with the answer. Also there are others who understand the current interpretation is faulty and are in the process of trying to correct that. 

I chose to discontinue the debate as others here are diametrically opposed idealogically, hard to debate ideology. Also, My statements were not being listened to, others chose just to disregard what I said & continue to argue the same point again. As is still being done. 

Plus the immature nit-picking over grammar is just plain......immature. 

:grit:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/Invasion.html

View this video and you can get a better understanding of the scope of the problem.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

So here we are arguing the amnesty for illegals already.. well if that is not an indicator of the next big national battle I do not know what is..For what ever reasons HT is usually just a step ahead of the next fight... it was the same on HC,.. we started debating it here quite some time ago..then it became the national debate... so it will be also with illegal immigration... and that is a fight that worries/concerns/scares me.. as it will be much worse...and I fear more violent than HC..


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Aintlifegrand said:


> So here we are arguing the amnesty for illegals already.. well if that is not an indicator of the next big national battle I do not know what is..For what ever reasons HT is usually just a step ahead of the next fight... it was the same on HC,.. we started debating it here quite some time ago..then it became the national debate... so it will be also with illegal immigration... and that is a fight that worries/concerns/scares me.. as it will be much worse...and I fear more violent than HC..


Divide and Conquer, Caeser and LouisXI weren't too dumb
Our Founding Fathers kinda hit on this subject in The Federalist Papers #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm


> The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. *Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.* A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
> 
> *No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.* With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? _*It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.*_ Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. *The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.*





> If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.* It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.* When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.





> *A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.*


 WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT TAINTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Those defending the flow of illegal immigrants into our country apparently don't understand one thing. The illegals come here for welfare and free medical care. They come here with the intent to suck the US govt teat. Many legal residents that have been here for generations are now being denied services and assistance because the illegals take top priority. Right here in Columbus there are several free clinics available to illegals (in addition to care at the hospitals) and only illegals. Unless you have had to live in an area with a large population of illegals you have NO idea just how bad the problem is. Sure they come here to get jobs. But since they are willing to work for minimum wage or less they drag the economy down. Landscaping and lawncare jobs used to pay $9 to $12 an hour, now they pay less than $7. Theft also goes up when illegals move into an area. The employees at the local TSC have commented on how much of their inventory walks out the door since the droves of illegal immigrants have settled here.


----------

