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.

Complaining that a significant group of people are leading to the demise of the economy and the country . . . let's see, where have we heard that before?

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:When I drive at speed limit on a highway and feel I am likely to cause an accident because everyone else is going ten miles an hour faster, I think there is a problem with the limit and speed up. When I see that there are millions of illegal immigrants/undocumented aliens, many of them working and supporting themselves and their families, I think we should reconsider the laws before demanding that they all be deported. And I think the criteria for immigration reform should be determined by a serious study of the issue, not in primaries where candidates have to appeal to the most emotional voters.

Yes, but if you're caught speeding, you suffer the consequences for breaking the law and you are fined. If your speeding is particularly severe, you are jailed. Very poor comparison.

I don't think the US needs to change our laws just because illegal aliens are coming here in droves. News flash: If we *tighten* up our borders, there wouldn't be the need to change any laws because there wouldn't be so many of them here.

Just don't understand why the US has to be the one to change and compromise. What other country is so lax in their enforcement of its immigration policy? Even Mexico is pretty strict!

Canada.
New Zealand.
Australia.

Just to name a few...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this was necessary when the nation was being FORMED. However, this technicality has been used and abused by illegals. Why is the US expected to welcome everyone while other countries are free to protect their borders and enact strict immigration laws?

Also, do you have any links to sources that talk about the percentage of anchor babies who earn a degree and rise from the ranks of poverty? I'm genuinely curious about this.

How many Amendments to the constitution do you consider "technicalities"? The Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10. 13th abolishes slavery. 14th Amendment provides citizenship by birth. 15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 19th gives women the right to vote. 22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years. There's only a total of 27, so I am curious - how many do you find "technicalities" that people are just taking advantage of so we should repeal them?

Just the 14th one. I maintain that it was NOT intended to be used and abused like it is now with illegals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children of illegal hispanic immigrants average 2 less years of college than children of legal hispanic immigrants. That said, "once illegal immigrants found ways to legalize their status their children’s educational levels rose substantially."

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/illegal-immigrants%E2%80%99-children-fare-worse-at-school/

I wish I could find the entire study, but googling it hasn't produced anything other than one I would need to buy.

Meant two less years of education, not college. They average 11 years of education - so on average, children of illegal immigrants finish 10 grade.

So the "anchor babies go on to be successful and an asset to the US" stance is complete rubbish. Who would've thunk it? I'm not at all surprised. We're just allowing poor people to come into the country and then their families continue to the cycle of poverty. All on the taxpayer's dime.

There's a reason for the entire immigration process. Most immigrants that come into the US legally are educated (or seeking higher education) and, as such, prove to be an asset once they gain their citizenship. Shouldn't the goal be having all immigrants be legal ones? I see very little that illegals have done to improve the US' position in the world. In fact, as their numbers increase, we are becoming more and more like the illegal's home countries...bankrupt.

takoma wrote:When I drive at speed limit on a highway and feel I am likely to cause an accident because everyone else is going ten miles an hour faster, I think there is a problem with the limit and speed up. When I see that there are millions of illegal immigrants/undocumented aliens, many of them working and supporting themselves and their families, I think we should reconsider the laws before demanding that they all be deported. And I think the criteria for immigration reform should be determined by a serious study of the issue, not in primaries where candidates have to appeal to the most emotional voters.

Yes, but if you're caught speeding, you suffer the consequences for breaking the law and you are fined. If your speeding is particularly severe, you are jailed. Very poor comparison.

I don't think the US needs to change our laws just because illegal aliens are coming here in droves. News flash: If we *tighten* up our borders, there wouldn't be the need to change any laws because there wouldn't be so many of them here.

Just don't understand why the US has to be the one to change and compromise. What other country is so lax in their enforcement of its immigration policy? Even Mexico is pretty strict!

When I drive at speed limit on a highway and feel I am likely to cause an accident because everyone else is going ten miles an hour faster, I think there is a problem with the limit and speed up. When I see that there are millions of illegal immigrants/undocumented aliens, many of them working and supporting themselves and their families, I think we should reconsider the laws before demanding that they all be deported. And I think the criteria for immigration reform should be determined by a serious study of the issue, not in primaries where candidates have to appeal to the most emotional voters.

Anonymous wrote:Children of illegal hispanic immigrants average 2 less years of college than children of legal hispanic immigrants. That said, "once illegal immigrants found ways to legalize their status their children’s educational levels rose substantially."

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/illegal-immigrants%E2%80%99-children-fare-worse-at-school/

I wish I could find the entire study, but googling it hasn't produced anything other than one I would need to buy.

Meant two less years of education, not college. They average 11 years of education - so on average, children of illegal immigrants finish 10 grade.

Children of illegal hispanic immigrants average 2 less years of college than children of legal hispanic immigrants. That said, "once illegal immigrants found ways to legalize their status their children’s educational levels rose substantially."

http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/illegal-immigrants%E2%80%99-children-fare-worse-at-school/

I wish I could find the entire study, but googling it hasn't produced anything other than one I would need to buy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this was necessary when the nation was being FORMED. However, this technicality has been used and abused by illegals. Why is the US expected to welcome everyone while other countries are free to protect their borders and enact strict immigration laws?

Also, do you have any links to sources that talk about the percentage of anchor babies who earn a degree and rise from the ranks of poverty? I'm genuinely curious about this.

How many Amendments to the constitution do you consider "technicalities"? The Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10. 13th abolishes slavery. 14th Amendment provides citizenship by birth. 15th Prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 19th gives women the right to vote. 22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years. There's only a total of 27, so I am curious - how many do you find "technicalities" that people are just taking advantage of so we should repeal them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this was necessary when the nation was being FORMED. However, this technicality has been used and abused by illegals. Why is the US expected to welcome everyone while other countries are free to protect their borders and enact strict immigration laws?

Also, do you have any links to sources that talk about the percentage of anchor babies who earn a degree and rise from the ranks of poverty? I'm genuinely curious about this.

U.S.-born children of immigrants have lower poverty rates overall than foreign-born children of immigrants.

Anonymous wrote:I am for immigration of all types - legal and illegal - and believe it has an overall positive effect on our economy, our society and our world. I hope that eventually immigration controls will be eliminated and we will truly live in a world without borders.

This x 2.

Anonymous wrote: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

Yes, and their are natural born American citizens that kill, rape, and steal.

How about Zoila Meyer? Law abiding (or at least she thought), successful... never knew she wasn't a citizen since her parents brought her here when she was 1 and she was raised "American".

What about Jose Antonio Vargas? He worked for The Washington Post and won a Pulitzer. Illegal.

Both Charlize Theron and Arnold Schwarzennegar worked in the US illegally.

Charles Manson, on the other hand, was a true American. Same with Jeffrey Dahmer. Lee Harvey Oswald. Ted Bundy. Timothy McVeigh. Ted Kaczynski. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I can on and on with horrible "Americans".

Criminals (which illegal immigrants are not - it is a civil law, not criminal law) should be prosecuted regardless of their citizenship and immigration status.

Immigrants should be given realistic options on how to be here legally. If the civil laws were changed, we would not have this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, this was necessary when the nation was being FORMED. However, this technicality has been used and abused by illegals. Why is the US expected to welcome everyone while other countries are free to protect their borders and enact strict immigration laws?

Also, do you have any links to sources that talk about the percentage of anchor babies who earn a degree and rise from the ranks of poverty? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think there is a difference between undocumented persons who commit crimes and those who don't. deport the criminals, offer one time amnesty to the hard workers who contribute. and boy do they contribute. most americans don't want to take on the jobs they tackle.

also, i find it ironic for a country of immigrants to deport others whose stories resemble their ancestors. it wasn't that long ago that most of your ancestors were looked upon disparingly as well.

Especially Irish, Italian or AA. But that is the thing about history...those who don't study it, are stupid

Africans were enslaved and brought to the United States against their will. Illegal immigrants come to the US willingly. It is not an accurate comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I like you.