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.
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy, was I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML - broken link)
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML - broken link)
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!
If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
or 5. American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. But should be refered to as American Citizens
Who of you denies that an American citizen has a right to all the rights and privilages as You.
How dare any American citizen call another American Citizen by any other name than American.
By what right does anybody proclaim themselves better that any other American. Where in the US Constitution is that right granted?
The term "Anchor Baby" was a ridiculous term used to try to create a difference in a group of American citizens from the rest of America.
Its does not mater and will never mater wether an American is born poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, or even if your mother was legal or illegal. No label should ever be placed on any other American citizen.
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
or 5. American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. But should be refered to as American Citizens
Who of you denies that an American citizen has a right to all the rights and privilages as You.
How dare any American citizen call another American Citizen by any other name than American.
By what right does anybody proclaim themselves better that any other American. Where in the US Constitution is that right granted?
The term "Anchor Baby" was a ridiculous term used to try to create a difference in a group of American citizens from the rest of America.
Its does not mater and will never mater wether an American is born poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, or even if your mother was legal or illegal. No label should ever be placed on any other American citizen.
Needless to say: birthright citizenship needs to be done away with unless at least one parent is, minimum, a green card holder.
Precedent has been set in virtually all other First World nations in that at least one parent needs to be a citizen of a specific land prior to its child receiving that same perk.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,428,052 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
or 5. American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. But should be refered to as American Citizens
Who of you denies that an American citizen has a right to all the rights and privilages as You.
How dare any American citizen call another American Citizen by any other name than American.
By what right does anybody proclaim themselves better that any other American. Where in the US Constitution is that right granted?
Quote:
The term "Anchor Baby" was a ridiculous term used to try to create a difference in a group of American citizens from the rest of America.
Its does not mater and will never mater wether an American is born poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, or even if your mother was legal or illegal. No label should ever be placed on any other American citizen.
We could start calling them "artificial citizens", the"generic breed" or for Obama "B.O. babies"
Needless to say: birthright citizenship needs to be done away with unless at least one parent is, minimum, a green card holder.
Precedent has been set in virtually all other First World nations in that at least one parent needs to be a citizen of a specific land prior to its child receiving that same perk.
Correct.
The right words are "anchor baby", period. For the most part either they are pregnant when coming over and know that if born here can stay here, or they get pregnant as quickly as possible and know that they will be allowed to stay.
They are called "anchor baby" for the parents, unfortunately our laws make the baby a citizen, the laws need to be tougher to not allow this to happen.
That will not happen though, we have to many bleeding heart libs in office and they know that it will upset the base if they do anything other than open the check book and provide.
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
or 5. American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. But should be refered to as American Citizens
Who of you denies that an American citizen has a right to all the rights and privilages as You.
How dare any American citizen call another American Citizen by any other name than American.
By what right does anybody proclaim themselves better that any other American. Where in the US Constitution is that right granted?
The term "Anchor Baby" was a ridiculous term used to try to create a difference in a group of American citizens from the rest of America.
Its does not mater and will never mater wether an American is born poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, or even if your mother was legal or illegal. No label should ever be placed on any other American citizen.
The outrage is because these anchors have become American citizens by the MISINTERPRETATION of the 14th amendment. So technically and realistically, NO they aren't U.S. citizens by birth.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,428,052 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
The outrage is because these anchors have become American citizens by the MISINTERPRETATION of the 14th amendment. So technically and realistically, NO they aren't U.S. citizens by birth.
How about "loophole babies" Either way Illegals still use them for anchors.
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
or 5. American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. But should be refered to as American Citizens
Who of you denies that an American citizen has a right to all the rights and privilages as You.
How dare any American citizen call another American Citizen by any other name than American.
By what right does anybody proclaim themselves better that any other American. Where in the US Constitution is that right granted?
The term "Anchor Baby" was a ridiculous term used to try to create a difference in a group of American citizens from the rest of America.
Its does not mater and will never mater wether an American is born poor or rich, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, or even if your mother was legal or illegal. No label should ever be placed on any other American citizen.
With that being said, then you should tell all the "African Americans" that they are JUST americans, not African. If you were born here then you are American by your statement, how do you think that would fly? People use labels when it benifits them, such as "African Americans". I would venture to say that most who call themselves that are 2-3 or more generations removed from Africa, that is if their heritage is even from Africa, as in many cases they are NOT from Africa at all. If you took away labels as you suggest, then the "blacks" "mexicans" and any other so called minority group would be out of luck at getting handouts, special treatments and on and on.
Now if your a bleeding heart lib you would NEVER want to do without labels. If you did then you would do away with the special/minority groups and you would not have anything to "fight" for against the evil "white" man.
Just have one spot on all applications for "American", that way we can do away with quotes needed to hire blacks and minorities. Ya right!! See how far that flys.
You can not have the cake and eat it too. Although if your a bleeding heart lib, you will generally do just that.
I would not like to be called "white", "whitey" or "cracker" anymore.
I would prefer that you call me a "Cream/pale potato eating Irish American". I am sure there is some lib out there that will pick up on that and we can start a "special" group for people like me and I can join in on all the free stuff and sit on my ass!!!
Chicagonut you are correct. In the piece I pulled below, it states that the Court has implicitly assumed that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship. The word to follow is "ASSUMED". The supreme court WILL not revisit the ruling, I don't think it will ever change.
The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11] According to The Heritage Foundation, which maintains that Congress possesses the power to exclude children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents from U.S. citizenship by legislation, neither in that decision nor any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[12] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[13] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S.444 (1985)[14] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.202 (1982).[15]
Chicagonut you are correct. In the piece I pulled below, it states that the Court has implicitly assumed that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship. The word to follow is "ASSUMED". The supreme court WILL not revisit the ruling, I don't think it will ever change.
The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11] According to The Heritage Foundation, which maintains that Congress possesses the power to exclude children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents from U.S. citizenship by legislation, neither in that decision nor any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[12] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[13] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S.444 (1985)[14] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.202 (1982).[15]
And this is exactly why we have to lock down the border. Once they infiltrate our border we are almost defenseless against the social service onslaught.
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.
