S/O: Illegal Aliens (For or Against)

[Anonymous]

You need to become a little more educated on immigration before you continue your tirade

Ummm...do we or do we not as a country currently have laws that govern immigration? What happened before we had said laws or before we came a country is not pertinent to the question at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crying "racism" every time someone disagrees with your position is counter-prouductive to the real incidences of racism. People can have valid differences of opinion regarding immigration, Obama, etc. based upon policy and laws and race is not a factor. To turn these discussion into default "you're racists" misses the very opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both positions and shows and intellectual immaturity.

Sadly, folks that are supportive of illegal aliens rarely have intelligent and convincing arguments. They instead lash out and play the race card. Seriously, if an intelligence response is given perhaps that will give me food for thought. I've yet to be fed from the other side of this debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crying "racism" every time someone disagrees with your position is counter-prouductive to the real incidences of racism. People can have valid differences of opinion regarding immigration, Obama, etc. based upon policy and laws and race is not a factor. To turn these discussion into default "you're racists" misses the very opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both positions and shows and intellectual immaturity.

Sorry, but the people who cry "respect for our laws" aren't incensed about speeders and litterers. They're incensed about all the brown people they see about. As I posted above, if you really cared about respect for the law, you would support a broad guest worker program that permits people to come here and take the same jobs they already have, except legally. They'd get valid social security cards and pay taxes (like they do now), and our precious (ineffectual, made to be broken) laws wouldn't be broken. But you never hear the "I'm 100% against illegal aliens" crowd say that. Instead, they say "I'd vote for any candidate who would deport them all." Really?

As for "anchor babies," those are American citizens you are talking about. Birthright citizenship isn't a loophole, it's what our founding fathers purposefully put into the Constitution. People who rail against "anchor babies" just don't like that citizenship is being extended to "them," and by "them" they mean the brown people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crying "racism" every time someone disagrees with your position is counter-prouductive to the real incidences of racism. People can have valid differences of opinion regarding immigration, Obama, etc. based upon policy and laws and race is not a factor. To turn these discussion into default "you're racists" misses the very opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of both positions and shows and intellectual immaturity.

Sadly, folks that are supportive of illegal aliens rarely have intelligent and convincing arguments. They instead lash out and play the race card. Seriously, if an intelligence response is given perhaps that will give me food for thought. I've yet to be fed from the other side of this debate.

First you'd have to come up with an argument as to why you're so upset about illegal immigration. But assuming you'll say "respect for our laws," tell me, are you in favor of a broad guest worker program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You need to become a little more educated on immigration before you continue your tirade

Ummm...do we or do we not as a country currently have laws that govern immigration? What happened before we had said laws or before we came a country is not pertinent to the question at hand.

Yes, knowing history it is pertinent to understanding any issue. Many of us that are pro-immigration were raised to believe that the US was a land of opportunity, built by migrants. I disagree with the laws that restrict immigration. We did not have these laws when we were founded, and if we had, the US would not be the great nation she is today. I recognize that migrants can and do provide real benefits to this nation, they are not just a draw on resources as the other side claims. They do pay a variety of taxes. Many can and do go on to get higher education.

Immigration law is a civil law, not a criminal law, so technically not a crime.

There should be better laws that allow for immigrants to come into our nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting that the countries that have the most illegal aliens in the US have their own strict laws re: immigration.

All of the arguments about "illegal aliens should have the same opportunities as my forefathers" is BS. The US was being founded. Before the Constitution, there was no concept of illegal immigration. Now America has laws and, tough shit Sherlock, you need to obey them.

I wonder what would happen if I went to Mexico, some countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, etc and told them I'm here, I'm staying; get used to it? You'd probably never see me alive again.

Another pet peeve: If you're illegal, just how successful are you going to be in America? You can't get higher education and as such, you can never elevate yourself to a level that is that much above poverty. So, all we're really doing is adding millions of people to a life of poverty in the US.

Bullshit that Americans don't want to do the jobs that illegals will. What Americans don't want to do is do it for insulting low wages. What, I should work for $5.00 an hour doing dangerous construction work just because Jose will? No way. Illegals have driven wages so low, that it's pathetic. Those that hire illegals should be forced to leave the US and reside in the country of the employed illegal.

Illegals are also a stain on our healthcare system. They flood emergency rooms and don't pay their bills, forcing some hospitals to close their doors.

Don't get me started on the "anchor baby" BS and the abuse of this loophole to gain access to government assistance.

I really am appalled at the lack of balls the US shows about protecting our borders. Just pathetic.

BTW, I'm black, so let's not make this an issue about not liking "brown people". I like them just fine.....as long as they're legal. I couldn't give a flying fig how good of a person you are..if you're here illegally, you're a criminal and I don't associate with criminals.

I agree with your post. I also am not a fan of outsourcing. For example the main call center to american express travel is in india. No people in DC who could do the job? No unemployed in the rust belt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but the people who cry "respect for our laws" aren't incensed about speeders and litterers. They're incensed about all the brown people they see about. As I posted above, if you really cared about respect for the law, you would support a broad guest worker program that permits people to come here and take the same jobs they already have, except legally. They'd get valid social security cards and pay taxes (like they do now), and our precious (ineffectual, made to be broken) laws wouldn't be broken. But you never hear the "I'm 100% against illegal aliens" crowd say that. Instead, they say "I'd vote for any candidate who would deport them all." Really?

As for "anchor babies," those are American citizens you are talking about. Birthright citizenship isn't a loophole, it's what our founding fathers purposefully put into the Constitution. People who rail against "anchor babies" just don't like that citizenship is being extended to "them," and by "them" they mean the brown people.

#1- How do you know that anti-illegals folks aren't "incensed about speeders and litterers"? Have you asked them this? I personally don't agree with either and if caught, they should be fined. (BTW, they *are* fined, so doesn't it stand to reason that if illegals are "caught" they should be deported? That is, after all, their "fine").

#2-Not pissed off about the color of the skin. I'm black, so that would hardly make sense. I do have a problem with the fact that some don't know, nor attempt to learn the English language. It's absolute BS that many of the jobs advertised today count Americans out because they want people who are bilingual...and we're not talking about in Chinese.

#3-Most of the illegal aliens that come here are poor and they have little education. What exactly is the benefit of bringing in more poor people and adding to the welfare rolls? Illegal aliens should not get dibs on low wage jobs. Telling Americans "tough luck, you should have went to college" is bullshit. Why should Americans get the short end of the stick? Why shouldn't illegal aliens have to have a degree if Americans should?

#4- The anchor baby thing frustrates me to no end. The law was not meant to be abused by criminals seeking to milk the government for aid. If the goal is to get here and get legal, why not stop at 1 baby? No, instead you see mothers with several children....all the better to increase the amount of their monthly aid. The anchor baby loophole (as it is indeed a loophole) should be closed NOW.

[Anonymous]

Anti-illegal immigration. Also part of a multi-racial family (multiple race/multiple generations) that has experienced racism. My opinions are not racially motivated. Stop the ignorant ranting about racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

How do you know what the Constitution intended? I'm guessing the framers never intended for idiots to have Uzis, but goddammit it's in the Constitution so we should leave it alone, right?

[Anonymous]

here are some great illegals that have been deported over and over again and still come back and kill people including a nun

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/15/2503601/illegal-immigrant-gets-13-years.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime-punishment/2011/10/illegal-immigrant-convicted-murdering-nun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

How do you know what the Constitution intended? I'm guessing the framers never intended for idiots to have Uzis, but goddammit it's in the Constitution so we should leave it alone, right?

Uzis yes, illegal anchor babies NO. Why do you want illegal anchor babies? What good do they do or provide our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

How do you know what the Constitution intended? I'm guessing the framers never intended for idiots to have Uzis, but goddammit it's in the Constitution so we should leave it alone, right?

Uzis yes, illegal anchor babies NO. Why do you want illegal anchor babies? What good do they do or provide our society.

I haven't seen any good (not to say that it isn't possible). The only "good" I can see is that they translate for their Mom who, even after being in the US long enough to have a child and send him/her to elementary school, she still doesn't have enough command of the English language to conduct her business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

How do you know what the Constitution intended? I'm guessing the framers never intended for idiots to have Uzis, but goddammit it's in the Constitution so we should leave it alone, right?

Uzis yes, illegal anchor babies NO. Why do you want illegal anchor babies? What good do they do or provide our society.

Anchor babies are completely legal. Its not a "loophole". It was always assumed that migrants would have children, and children born of this soil become US citizens BY BIRTH. Uzis, on the other hand, were never thought of when our nation was founded. The rifle had not even been invented. A proficient soldier could load and fire a musket about 3 times in a minute. An uzi? 600 rounds per minute.
No baby does "good" or "provides" for society - unless they have their own tv show. However, most babies become adults, and most adults have jobs, and many have degrees, including the children of illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:against, and for changing automatic birth citizenship to when at least 1 parent is a citizen. No more anchor babies.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

The Constitutionnever intended for coutries near our borders to have their citizens sneak over and plop out babies to get free benifits and all the things that come with citizenship. The balance of income vs expendetures is going to bankrupt our nation. You can't have all these poor new people coming in getting public assistance when the parents never paid a dime into the system, it unsustainable. look at california, that state is fucked. Luckily there are enough moron liberal movie star and rich people who don't mind throwing away their money to taxes that it has a tiny amount of taxed income streams but even with that california is BANKRUPT.

How do you know what the Constitution intended? I'm guessing the framers never intended for idiots to have Uzis, but goddammit it's in the Constitution so we should leave it alone, right?

Uzis yes, illegal anchor babies NO. Why do you want illegal anchor babies? What good do they do or provide our society.

This isn't even an argument. You're just lashing out at BABIES now. Your first sentence is essentially a Tea Party rally poster. Have fun in the Thunderdome.