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.
"Did you intend to come to the U.S. to give birth?" An agent asked. He wanted to see receipts from the maternity hotel, the OBGYN and the hospital. When Huang admitted she had applied for welfare — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) — the agent grew stern. "That's for citizens, not foreigners," he said, according to Huang. "Who told you you could do that?"
I've posted full accountings of that before. This is how the total average effective federal tax rate works out for each income group:
And I have responded to this complete nonsense before as well. I pay a 12.4% as social security just like everyone else int he bottom 80%. Notice how your "chart" doesnt include that?
Yeah, its nonsense. You can dress it up all nice, but it still fails the sniff test
Quote:
Originally Posted by RVAtoCNC
Where are your figures that show what percentage of welfare takers are working 40 hours per week? I am sure this number is 10% or less.
Edit - you didn't like the numbers did you - proves your argument that welfare is miniscule was B.S.
I like the numbers just fine. How do you? Or are you going to keep spreading...what was it you called it.....BS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
False. They get welfare for their anchor babies, including free medical care for their anchor babies' deliveries. Then, they get a plethora of welfare benefits for their anchor babies.
You do understand that "anchor babies" are US citizens? Right?
Now if you want to argue that we shouldn't give anchor babies US citizenship, thats a separate topic that I suspect you and I would agree on.....but the reality is, is that the only people getting welfare are US citizens.
You do understand that "anchor babies" are US citizens? Right?
Now if you want to argue that we shouldn't give anchor babies US citizenship, thats a separate topic that I suspect you and I would agree on.....
They shouldn't be, and I've given a long legal explanation why that is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Time again to post the long legal history on this and/or refresh everyone's memory...
The children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. were never intended to have birthright citizenship. This is how we know...
1) The 14th Amendment and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
WKA decision:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the courtupon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
For political reasons, the 14th Amendment has been bastardized since then, but such bastardization was never an actual Constitutional Amendment.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
I realize that's a lot of historical information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "policy" (not the Constitution or the law) very recently changed.
There has never been any law passed, similar to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, that gives birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. but subject to a foreign power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
but the reality is, is that the only people getting welfare are US citizens.
Really? Infants are shopping with EBT cards, NOT their illegal alien parents? Infants are living in subsidized housing without their illegal alien parents? Etc., etc. ...I think not.
It's not nonsense. It comes from a lefty source (founded by LBJ).
I really dont care where it came from, or who funded it, it fails a simple sniff test. I notice you don't deny it. So are we going to discuss REALITY, or some fantasy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
They shouldn't be, and I've given a long legal explanation why that is:
Nevertheless despite your huge explanation of the law based upon someone elses argument...the REALITY is that they are citizens at this point in time. So agani, REALITY, or fantasy?
Quote:
Really? Infants are shopping with EBT cards, NOT their illegal alien parents? Infants are living in subsidized housing without their illegal alien parents? Etc., etc. ...I think not.
While parents benefit, the money is also benefiting our citizens (the children)-and it would be far more expensive to spend money to only benefit them. Again, while I agree they shouldn't be allowed to do this, and would agree with changing the laws to reflect that, we are discussing reality, not the fantasy of what we want.
Wow, Condemnation of a retirement plan based upon a few days of stock market activity?
Interesting when pretty much every single retirement adviser will have younger workers invest more heavily in equities and shift towards more stable (lower yield) investment mixes as they age.
You say a lot of buzz words and catch phrases and then make claims that the party you hate is going to cut social security in the future?
You've got a pretty severe credibility issue at this point as just being a partisan axe grinder.
Neither party is going to seriously touch social security.
How is it possible that you don't understand that privatization is destructive to the trust fund. Ten years ago the Republicans were testing the waters of privatization.
Here is my view of the Republican Party. They have always been the party of big business. This is common knowledge.
Still with me?
In the last thirty years the nature of the American corporation has changed. They are now multi-national corporations. The American middle class is under 200 million. The potential for an Indian/Chinese middle class of over a billion changes the priorities of these companies. The Republicans still support them hook line and sinker and the American middle class is now just an expense to be contained.
Wow, Condemnation of a retirement plan based upon a few days of stock market activity?
Interesting when pretty much every single retirement adviser will have younger workers invest more heavily in equities and shift towards more stable (lower yield) investment mixes as they age.
You say a lot of buzz words and catch phrases and then make claims that the party you hate is going to cut social security in the future?
You've got a pretty severe credibility issue at this point as just being a partisan axe grinder.
Neither party is going to seriously touch social security.
A two thousand point drop in three days. You also ignore the near depression seven years ago. And seven years ago the only thing that didn't take a hit was money market funds. You've committed the sin of omission.
I see that you've also chosen to ignore my quote from your document.
Conservative think tanks and the Republican party have a strategy to convince the American people that Social Security is close to bankruptcy.
[snip]
Let me stop you right there, 0bama's own trustees over at the Social Security department say some potions of the program is in "crisis," are they a part of the Republican conspiracy too?
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.
