You may not agree with Trump but he means business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

Says the child of immigrants. Shall we lay odds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

So do the work and change the Constitution if you are so anti-Constitution. Surely with your powerful arguments, 2/3 of state legislatures will agree with you. Otherwise, stop your whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

So do the work and change the Constitution if you are so anti-Constitution. Surely with your powerful arguments, 2/3 of state legislatures will agree with you. Otherwise, stop your whining.

+1 I'm wondering why the R controlled Congress don't try to push for this. IMO, though, the 2nd amendment needs to be modified before any other one because guns do more harm to our country than anchor babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

Great. Change the Constitution and that will then be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

So do the work and change the Constitution if you are so anti-Constitution. Surely with your powerful arguments, 2/3 of state legislatures will agree with you. Otherwise, stop your whining.

Whining? This is my country. I have no other as do these illegal immigrants who were given TPS. Nor am I a DACA recipient. The fact is birthright citizenship was not intended for masses of illegal immigrants' children NOR those born here to a parent o a tourist visa.

And no I am not an immigrant. Did I see people here for 15 plus years speaking Spanish on TV today? Yes.

Part of my family was here during the Civil War - fought for the Union at great personal cost. Which side they supported meant more since they were border state people. There is a clause in the 14th Amendment that says, "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The US has always had an ebb and flow in TX and CA with Mexico but nothing on the scope we have today with numerous countries. Also there was not birther tourism. One family I knew had at least 8 births in the USA from a daughter and cousins here on tourist visas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

So do the work and change the Constitution if you are so anti-Constitution. Surely with your powerful arguments, 2/3 of state legislatures will agree with you. Otherwise, stop your whining.

Whining? This is my country. I have no other as do these illegal immigrants who were given TPS. Nor am I a DACA recipient. The fact is birthright citizenship was not intended for masses of illegal immigrants' children NOR those born here to a parent o a tourist visa.

And no I am not an immigrant. Did I see people here for 15 plus years speaking Spanish on TV today? Yes.

Part of my family was here during the Civil War - fought for the Union at great personal cost. Which side they supported meant more since they were border state people. There is a clause in the 14th Amendment that says, "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The US has always had an ebb and flow in TX and CA with Mexico but nothing on the scope we have today with numerous countries. Also there was not birther tourism. One family I knew had at least 8 births in the USA from a daughter and cousins here on tourist visas.

Let’s think about about “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. That’s what allows the children of diplomats born whe to get only green cards. Not citizenship. It doesn’t apply to anyone else. Look it up. I say again quit your bitchin’ and change the Constitution. Our troops fight and die for the principles in the Constitution, not the ones you imagine to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

So do the work and change the Constitution if you are so anti-Constitution. Surely with your powerful arguments, 2/3 of state legislatures will agree with you. Otherwise, stop your whining.

Whining? This is my country. I have no other as do these illegal immigrants who were given TPS. Nor am I a DACA recipient. The fact is birthright citizenship was not intended for masses of illegal immigrants' children NOR those born here to a parent o a tourist visa.

And no I am not an immigrant. Did I see people here for 15 plus years speaking Spanish on TV today? Yes.

Part of my family was here during the Civil War - fought for the Union at great personal cost. Which side they supported meant more since they were border state people. There is a clause in the 14th Amendment that says, "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The US has always had an ebb and flow in TX and CA with Mexico but nothing on the scope we have today with numerous countries. Also there was not birther tourism. One family I knew had at least 8 births in the USA from a daughter and cousins here on tourist visas.

Fought for the Union in a border state? You mean they were poor? Probably just off the boat from Cork? And the other side?

[Anonymous]

Obviously you don't know US history. 1819 was the year of the steerage act - ship captains required to keep records of passengers. 1892-Ellis Island.

There were Irish who came on cheaper Canadian timber ships - and some walked across the border. Most stayed in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously you don't know US history. 1819 was the year of the steerage act - ship captains required to keep records of passengers. 1892-Ellis Island.

There were Irish who came on cheaper Canadian timber ships - and some walked across the border. Most stayed in Canada.

Most Irish became canadian? Lol. You don't know history. Especially maritime. I know every boat my ancestors came in on. Most before 1750. The rest before 1800. The biggest wave of Irish immigration came with the Famine. None walked in from Canada, perhaps because Canada does not border any border states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

The Salvadorans came here in 2001 on protected status. Temporary. How many Presidential terms later is it still the same situation? Now the 5th and the 3rd president?

Why call it temporary? If a diplomat is here or some such special visa their children DO NOT get to be US citizens so why did children of these temporary US residents?
[Vienna, Tysons, etc].

Children of diplomats are in fact eligible for green cards.

Children of diplomats [here temporarily] do not get birthright citizenship and neither should other children born in the US to those here on a temporary basis or born to non-citizens.

You would make a poor lawyer. They carved out an exception in the 14th amendment for diplomats.

[Anonymous]

1.7 Salvadoran American citizens. Probably 1/3 vote republican. Or used to.

By deporting 200,000 Salvadorans, he likely created 600,000 new Democrats. Swing of 1.2 million from r to d.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously you don't know US history. 1819 was the year of the steerage act - ship captains required to keep records of passengers. 1892-Ellis Island.

There were Irish who came on cheaper Canadian timber ships - and some walked across the border. Most stayed in Canada.

Most Irish became canadian? Lol. You don't know history. Especially maritime. I know every boat my ancestors came in on. Most before 1750. The rest before 1800. The biggest wave of Irish immigration came with the Famine. None walked in from Canada, perhaps because Canada does not border any border states.

Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont share borders with Canada in eastern North America. Look at a map. Most Irish who arrived in Canada stayed here. Some did not and went by land to Maine. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/immigration/history-ethnic-cultural/Pages/irish.aspx

Note Canada knew when ships arrived with the Irish. More than the USA knows about those arriving over our southern border. http://irishamerica.com/2013/05/the-irish-of-the-miramichi/

[Anonymous]

The real problem is this is going to really hurt MS13. Think of all the jobs they create.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1.7 Salvadoran American citizens. Probably 1/3 vote republican. Or used to.

By deporting 200,000 Salvadorans, he likely created 600,000 new Democrats. Swing of 1.2 million from r to d.

Many will choose to stay here and go underground, and no longer pay taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people have been here a long time. No new people are getting TPS, the have to have been here when the program was open.

They have to apply and pay to stay every 18 months and they can’t have criminal records. Many of them now have US citizen children. Deporting the parent of a US Citizens is bad policy. Often time the family that stays ends up going on public assistance. Most people understand all this. Stephen Miller does not. It’ bad for the families. It’s bad for state welfare programs. It’s bad for the community. But it makes some heartless non-thinking people think they are “winning”somehow.

Where is CASA getting so much of its funding $$$ ?

Where is the money coming from??

Again, you may believe this, you may think it's bad policy, but the fact is that current U.S. immigration laws do not offer parents of U.S. citizen children any benefits, absent other circumstances. The fact that someone gave birth to a child on American soil does not offer one a legal path to residency.