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.
Exactly. The question is designed to force people to commit to one of two binary positions when, in reality, the role of government, both domestically and abroad, requires a more nuanced response that is not presented as a choice. Obviously, this was done intentionally so that the OP can force people to take a hard, anti-immigration, insular stance or attack them for suggesting that the US government should put others first before its citizens. Its not even done craftily, its just kind of transparent and sloppy.
Immigration - legal immigration - can greatly benefit our country. I don't think anyone in this thread is anti-immigration. So your theory doesn't quite hold up.
Immigration - legal immigration - can greatly benefit our country. I don't think anyone in this thread is anti-immigration. So your theory doesn't quite hold up.
Exactly, this isn't about being anti-immigration but the needs of our own citizens should come first. I think the reason the OP started this topic is based on the fact of how many of our elected officials put the needs of illegal aliens over our own citizens and that's just plain wrong!
Exactly, this isn't about being anti-immigration but the needs of our own citizens should come first. I think the reason the OP started this topic is based on how many of our elected officials put the needs of illegal aliens over our own citizens and that's just plain wrong!
The elected democrats were not kissing illegal immigrants asses (at least not like this) until Trump became Pres.
I am guessing they are doing this to spite Trump even if they know their behaviors are harmful to US citizens
Leading question meant to ensnare an opposing point. NA
And what exactly is the opposing point? Give me the opposing point as to why the US should put other people ahead of its citizens. I can't wait for this.
Why should it? You guys always talk about how the Constitution is a perfect document. Well the Constitution makes it pretty clear that rights are inalienable and God-given. By that logic, the US has no moral grounds to put US citizens ahead of foreign-born people, all things being equal, since non-citizens have the same rights and freedoms as Americans.
That's what a constitutionalist should believe.
If your post was a computer program, they would call it spagetti-code. It goes all over the place, but says almost nil.
And what exactly is the opposing point? Give me the opposing point as to why the US should put other people ahead of its citizens. I can't wait for this.
My thought - many now have decided who is an American or not from what was accepted before, with mrTs new rules- as children of military overseas not Americans if born while deployed. Or if born during travel. A new birther issue. So as that truth of an American is an American citizen is now become smoky grey - I stand down from agreeing. I’ll remind you / I’m a vet widow so please don’t question my loyalties.
And what exactly is the opposing point? Give me the opposing point as to why the US should put other people ahead of its citizens. I can't wait for this.
Being the global hegemon (there really being no alternative), occasionally means government policies that advance the welfare of other peoples or nations.
An example would be sending an expeditionary military force to topple some dictator or to provide humanitarian relief in a war-zone... in some poor and benighted country that offers no natural resources or strategic-value such as placement of a future military base. This means spending American taxpayer money and possibly American lives, to die in some woeful village or jungle, so that people who don't look like Americans (whatever that means) and don't act like Americans or maybe not even much like Americans, may live better lives.
My thought - many now have decided who is an American or not from what was accepted before, with mrTs new rules- as children of military overseas not Americans if born while deployed. Or if born during travel. A new birther issue. So as that truth of an American is an American citizen is now become smoky grey - I stand down from agreeing. I’ll remind you / I’m a vet widow so please don’t question my loyalties.
I question your accuracy. The citizenship question had to do with adopted children of military parents, not those born to military parents stationed overseas. There was never any doubt that those children were in fact US citizens.
I'll remind you, I'm a military retiree, so I've earned the right to question what I see fit to question. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your loyalties despite the very weak opposing point you presented as an argument.
You guys always talk about how the Constitution is a perfect document.
Name one person here who has said this.
Quote:
Well the Constitution makes it pretty clear that rights are inalienable and God-given.
Point to where the Constitution says this.
Quote:
By that logic,
GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
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.
