Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,421,922 times
Reputation: 4611
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA
You know, I am a rabid fan of mass deportation but I have to concede that there is something in what olecapt says,
Quote:
there are so many and the longer we put off the day of reckoning, the more they will over run us with their children.
Having said that, I will not give up the fight. I would be much more open to some compromise if their rhetoric wasn't jammed down my throat and the demands were not over the top.
It's been found and being debated that the 14th Amendment/ automatic citizenship has been falsely misinterpited and Mexicos Citizenship laws shows that ours was never meant for children born to Illegal alien parents on US soil.
This will retroactivly reverse citizenship to anyone born to "non-US citizen" parents.
It's been found and being debated that the 14th Amendment/ automatic citizenship has been falsely misinterpited and Mexicos Citizenship laws shows that ours was never meant for children born to Illegal alien parents on US soil.
This will retroactivly reverse citizenship to anyone born to "non-US citizen" parents.
I doubt that if the law is changed it will be retroactive. Although it should be IMO.
I doubt that if the law is changed it will be retroactive. Although it should be IMO.
This is the classic of the anti. That because they believe strongly well established constitutional law will change.
The more reasonable one expects only a virtually impossible court ruling or constitutional amendment. The irrational one expects a retroactive change that will undo the well established citizenship of a few million citizens.
This delusional process is apparently what keeps the anti active and supportive of impossible goals thereby causing a worse case outcome.
This is the classic of the anti. That because they believe strongly well established constitutional law will change.
The more reasonable one expects only a virtually impossible court ruling or constitutional amendment. The irrational one expects a retroactive change that will undo the well established citizenship of a few million citizens.
This delusional process is apparently what keeps the anti active and supportive of impossible goals thereby causing a worse case outcome.
Well you will be eating crow then when our country changes birthright citizenship and it will. As I said, I don't think it will be retroactive though.
At the very least I think it will be changed to disallow the so called "birth tourism". There is no way in hell any sane person can argue these tourist mommas to be are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA when their sole purpose is to drop newly minted US citizens.
Aparently USC still has some value or it wouldn't be such a good business. I don't agree with retrospectivity in any law, but I'd make an exception for the birth tourism babies that have never even resided in this country.
It’s quite simple. Cut ALL government assistance, and deny ALL tax-funded services. Make it too costly for companies to employ illegal aliens, including stiff prison sentences. Make life in this country far worse than life in their countries of origin, and they will leave. We already know enforcement works. We also have more than enough proof that amnesty only results in more illegal immigration. As for their USC children, they can leave with their parents. Illegals are beginning to feel the heat, but they haven’t seen anything yet.
This is a very simple process to do. Unfortunately those making billions from illegal alien exploitation fight to keep the money train rolling.
At the very least I think it will be changed to disallow the so called "birth tourism". There is no way in hell any sane person can argue these tourist mommas to be are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA when their sole purpose is to drop newly minted US citizens.
Aparently USC still has some value or it wouldn't be such a good business. I don't agree with retrospectivity in any law, but I'd make an exception for the birth tourism babies that have never even resided in this country.
If the US can arrest you that is subject to the jurisdiction of. The US has no problem arresting tourists.
I think these politicians get threatened into this stuff sometimes. That is what I originally thought, but then I read that he had campaigned to do this from the get-go. But, I still think when politicians switch like this that there is a small chance that some of them were threatened into it.
This is the classic of the anti. That because they believe strongly well established constitutional law will change.
The more reasonable one expects only a virtually impossible court ruling or constitutional amendment. The irrational one expects a retroactive change that will undo the well established citizenship of a few million citizens.
This delusional process is apparently what keeps the anti active and supportive of impossible goals thereby causing a worse case outcome.
Yet you so strongly hold on to the belief that the LAWS will change in your direction. Whatcha smokin there???? Maybe it's the drug cartels you would miss??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
