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.
Fact is AMerica should have kept all the land in Mexico.. Texas and California are thriving and many Mexicans that lived in Texas and California are getting the benefits from it.. the Mexicans in Mexico aren't doing as well.
The Indians were at war with each other.. some tribes took land from other tribes.. nothing new here. So the white man came and developed the land.. such a terrible fate.
They should have at least kept Baja California. It was very sparsely populated and would have given the U.S. another several thousand miles of coastline. It also would have given Arizona ocean front property on it's southern border on the Gulf of California. Too bad. Maybe it's not too late.
Wrong! Only 40% of illegals are visa overstays. 60% are border jumpers. The wall along 700 miles of our most porous southern border was already approved by congress. It costs us $100 billion a year to allow illegals to remain here and to continue to come here. The wall would pay for itself in no time. Anyone who cries over land rather than supporting our national security is a fool.
I ask because many conservatives don't believe Trump is a real conservative. They believe he has hijacked the conservative movement within the Republican party for his own purposes, but doesn't actually believe in the conservative platform. And, in fact, conservatives are leading the effort to thwart him at the convention.
Eric Erickson of Red State said his group is "committed to ensuring a real conservative candidate is elected. We believe that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump--a Hillary Clinton donor--is that person.
"Our multiple decades of work in the conservative movement for free markets, limited government, national defense, religious liberty, life, and marriage are about ideas, not necessarily parties."
They believe that if Trump is the GOP nominee, the GOP will cease to be a party for traditional conservatives, who will have to go elsewhere after 2016.
Seems like Trump is going to rupture the party one way or another.
That is the most fraudulent idea put out by the Republican party..that he is not a conservative.. a huge lie to cover their real reason for taking down Trump... this is the real reason they don't want Trump.. they are afraid of Donald Trump cleaning up Washington and Trump being honest , he will let the people know just who is doing what.
I ask because many conservatives don't believe Trump is a real conservative. They believe he has hijacked the conservative movement within the Republican party for his own purposes, but doesn't actually believe in the conservative platform. And, in fact, conservatives are leading the effort to thwart him at the convention.
Eric Erickson of Red State said his group is "committed to ensuring a real conservative candidate is elected. We believe that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump--a Hillary Clinton donor--is that person.
"Our multiple decades of work in the conservative movement for free markets, limited government, national defense, religious liberty, life, and marriage are about ideas, not necessarily parties."
They believe that if Trump is the GOP nominee, the GOP will cease to be a party for traditional conservatives, who will have to go elsewhere after 2016.
Seems like Trump is going to rupture the party one way or another.
The GOP would gladly throw the election to Hillary because that way, should she win, the whole rotten corrupt system stays in place. In other words, politicians on both sides of the aisle can continue to be in the pockets of their mega-rich donors and put said donors ahead of their constituents. If Trump is elected, it will be the end of the gravy train. All this hand-wringing about the "conservative platform, blah, blah, blah" is just BS on their part. As I said, in the past, they had no problems supporting RINOs.
SCOTUS will look at its prior rulings and laugh at your prediction.
Again, Texas tried to deny illegal immigrant children of an education back in 1983. SCOTUS said "no chance, they're part of YOUR jurisdiction".
Based on that ruling, what makes you think they'll abolish birthright citizenship?
You'll need an constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
Maybe not. The constitution can be amended if enough people think it should be through individual states. It's been done before. Since the overwhelming percentage of Americans do not want children of illegals given American citizenship just because they were born on this side of the border, it might be changed easier than you think if a movement starts for that to happen.
Sure, they want cheap labor.. now 17 states are sending the illegals to college so they can have cheap white collar labor.. all you middle class Americans who think you got it made.. you will lose your job or take a huge pay cut when the illegals flock into the white collar job market..
American birthright is gone. The middle class is over.. two class system.. rich , and poor , no middle class. Third world country is what we will be and Trump recognizes it coming.
SCOTUS will look at its prior rulings and laugh at your prediction.
Again, Texas tried to deny illegal immigrant children of an education back in 1983. SCOTUS said "no chance, they're part of YOUR jurisdiction".
Based on that ruling, what makes you think they'll abolish birthright citizenship?
You'll need an constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
Constitutional amendments do happen Ray, so never say never. Australia banned birthright citizenship in 2007 so it does happen.
If anchor babies and their families become an undue burden on American society (most would argue they already are), public resentment will continue to grow and things could change.
Six months ago the public was evenly divided on support for a border wall. Six months later, that support has fallen off by a margin of 38% still in favor, but 58% now against.
In a word: Trump. As one pundit put it on Twitter: "It could be that Trump has made the issue so his thing that it basically meant if you're against Trump you're against the wall."
It sounds good until you really start to think about it...
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.
