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.
a lot of times, home is horrible poverty. if it was not better for them in the united states, they wouldnt immigrate in the first place. not giving a child a chance to become a productive american citizen is inhumane, in my opinion, and detrimental to our country's foundation of multiculturalism, the sharing of ideas, and the welfare of a poor and middle class. i dont know about you, but i support the ideas of our founding fathers, not the corrupt politicians that reign today.
Yea, sorry for that, so my country has to pay for it. They want help, they are going about it the wrong way, gimme dont get as they say. Dont come here demanding what you think is yours, it isnt yours.
if the answer is no, then the mexican families who have roots that go back further are not, either. borders or not, they have the roots here.
With very few exceptions, people who really do "have roots here" (meaning in the present-day US Southwest) are now US citizens. A huge number of these folks are the present-day American Indians, and the Hispanic-American population (My wife is one example). This is a huge difference from latter-day arrivals from outside the US who now claim to "have roots here". If your ancestors lived in this area, then you do indeed have roots here---and you are now a citizen, regardless of your race. If your ancestors lived elsewhere, then you DO NOT "have roots here", and you do NOT qualify for any privileges as a US citizen. Like it or not, that's the way our laws work. This country is a legal concept, and citizenship is a legal status, not a matter of ethnicity or "blood ties".
In the long, troubled history of California, Mexico was "in charge" for only about 25 years--a far smaller period than the span of one human lifetime. How this can now be translated into Mexicans' having some sort of moral "right" to the place takes a lot of imagination, and a certain willingness to "bend the truth", to put it mildly.
Spain, Russia, and Great Britain also had claims to California--why aren't THEIR citizens agitating now for "ancestral rights"?
With oil being over $80 dollars a barrel on the stock market Mexico is getting billions from that! Where in hell is the money going??? Probably in Swiss bank accounts.
Yea, sorry for that, so my country has to pay for it. They want help, they are going about it the wrong way, gimme dont get as they say. Dont come here demanding what you think is yours, it isnt yours.
if our country was more responsible with its spending, we could easily address the immigration and welfare issues, and turn people into productive members of society. our politicians are more to blame than anybody, in my opinion. and it is us, the citizens, that vote them in.
if our country was more responsible with its spending, we could easily address the immigration and welfare issues, and turn people into productive members of society. our politicians are more to blame than anybody, in my opinion. and it is us, the citizens, that vote them in.
I think if our government was more responsible for upholding our laws, we wouldnt be in this situation. PC is a killer. I didnt vote for them, the other sheep did.
With very few exceptions, people who really do "have roots here" (meaning in the present-day US Southwest) are now US citizens. A huge number of these folks are the present-day American Indians, and the Hispanic-American population (My wife is one example). This is a huge difference from latter-day arrivals from outside the US who now claim to "have roots here". If your ancestors lived in this area, then you do indeed have roots here---and you are now a citizen, regardless of your race. If your ancestors lived elsewhere, then you DO NOT "have roots here", and you do NOT qualify for any privileges as a US citizen. Like it or not, that's the way our laws work. This country is a legal concept, and citizenship is a legal status, not a matter of ethnicity or "blood ties".
In the long, troubled history of California, Mexico was "in charge" for only about 25 years--a far smaller period than the span of one human lifetime. How this can now be translated into Mexicans' having some sort of moral "right" to the place takes a lot of imagination, and a certain willingness to "bend the truth", to put it mildly.
Spain, Russia, and Great Britain also had claims to California--why aren't THEIR citizens agitating now for "ancestral rights"?
I think if our government was more responsible for upholding our laws, we wouldnt be in this situation. PC is a killer. I didnt vote for them, the other sheep did.
it is a hypocritical law, in my opinion. also, in my opinion, crossing into a country illegally is not as bad as a citizen who commits murder, rape, or any other violent crime. shouldnt we focus our law enforcement on violent crime first and foremost?
it is a hypocritical law, in my opinion. also, in my opinion, crossing into a country illegally is not as bad as a citizen who commits murder, rape, or any other violent crime. shouldnt we focus our law enforcement on violent crime first and foremost?
Some of them help contribute to that violent crime, we have our own we dont need other countries as well, if we shut our eyes and let everyone come that wants to, we are doomed. I dont think it is a hypocritical law at all, past is the past and people need to move on and take care of our and our kids future.
We are all anchor babies, in some way. Being born inside these borders is pure luck, regardless of the status of our parents. Punishing the children is not a humane approach, in my opinion.
Really...so someone comes here illegally, has intercourse to get pregnant and that is luck? I am sorry the root cause of that issue is that the person came here illegally by CHOICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST..
it is a hypocritical law, in my opinion. also, in my opinion, crossing into a country illegally is not as bad as a citizen who commits murder, rape, or any other violent crime. shouldnt we focus our law enforcement on violent crime first and foremost
By stopping illegall immigration we would be stopping a large amount of people that are comitting the the very crimes you spoke of. Stopping the problem at the source (one of the sources at least) is the most effective way instead of letting them to give them a chance to commit these crimes. You CANNOT have a secure and safe country while letting illegals come in, commit crimes, get deported and then come in and do this all over again. Sympathy is not an excuse for breaking our laws.
Some of them help contribute to that violent crime, we have our own we dont need other countries as well, if we shut our eyes and let everyone come that wants to, we are doomed. I dont think it is a hypocritical law at all, past is the past and people need to move on and take care of our and our kids future.
we have criminals in every society, but rarely do they make up the majority of the population (unless we find ways to make them criminals by passing unjust or unreasonable laws [prohibition in the 20's made a lot of criminals]). to dismiss the potential productivity of integrating a culture and its ideas based on the actions of a few is ridiculous. and again, the anchor babies will have kids and then our present will be their past, and we'll all just have to move on.
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.
dosnt make sense
