Is it really "illegal?"

[BuddyColt]

Well, I don't agree with Mr Giuliani's view then. If you have deliberately entered this or any country in a manner that circumvents the need to present required papers at the border then you should be considered guilty of knowingly committing a crime.

And I don't have a "leadership". I have an opinion. Exactly who in Washington shares my opinion I have no idea.

Notice the "SHOULD BE" according to what you said. Right now it is not. Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.

I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).

The current law is what needs examining. Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa. It is for seasonal, temporary work. That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa. It does not cover the exact reasons people come here. But, it's capped at 66,000 per year. That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care. They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and stealing American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "legally."

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Create a "proper" method of entry and you resolve the issue. You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S. But, the National Socialists want a brown free America. It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks

 

[BuddyColt]

Yes, it is. And.. yes, it should be.

Are you a complete idiot or just an occasional fool?

A complete idiot. See, those who support illegal immigration and think that the US shouldn't even have borders assume that ALL illegals are hard working people from mexico. They would understand it better if the illegals were white people from Eastern Europe, or millions of those nice communists from China.

The facts are, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration is that 75 percent of those without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the taxes... which means they are obeying the laws.

Additionally, those foreigners are paying some $12 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security and cannot draw one thin dime out in retirement.

 

[BuddyColt]

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or

eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or

attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

Hope that helps.

You call me an idiot? Can you read? The law provides no criminal penalty for improper entry. You aren't helping anything except establishing the fact that you are wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

Illegal immigration... the clue is in the phrase. Not rocket science. In this country, we have a process - which I fully support - for people who wish to come here.... it is called immigration.... the clue is in the word.... note, it does not have 'illegal' in front of it.

Idiot.

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position. Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?

1- The US had no FEDERAL immigration law until 1888

2- Then the US Supreme Court USURPED the authority to amend the Constitution because the Chinese - who were members of the "yellow" race were an emergent threat to "our people" . There were no claims that the chinese were abusing welfare or were a burden on the public fisc

3- Hoover' s Mexican Repatriation Act deported Americans of Mexican descent and concentrated on those who were brown skinned ; they deported 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans

4- Prior to 1965 we had open borders with Mexico and there was never a problem -

.

 

[tigerbob]

Notice the "SHOULD BE" according to what you said. Right now it is not. Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.

I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).

The current law is what needs examining. Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa. It is for seasonal, temporary work. That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa. It does not cover the exact reasons people come here. But, it's capped at 66,000 per year. That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care. They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and stealing American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "legally."

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Create a "proper" method of entry and you resolve the issue. You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S. But, the National Socialists want a brown free America. It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.

I also understand that the costs of going through the application process for legal entry (even if they could meet the requirements) are impossibly high for many. So on the face of it a low cost 'Guest Worker' visa program might seem to be a good idea. However, I do have concerns about the number of people this would accredit and what benefits it would entitle them to - benefits that would be paid for by existing taxpayers. Plus I have a concern that, once established, the next item on the agenda would instantly become pathway to citizenship. As I believe I recently posted on another thread, give a mouse a cookie and he'll want a glass of milk.

If the Guest Worker visa also required (1) a named place of residence, (2) payment of taxes and (3) good conduct, and maybe some other things, then I might support it. Obviously I'd have to think about it a bit more.

 

[tigerbob]

Typical neonazi conservative.

Any "law" which prevents brown skinned individuals from living in the US is good regardless of its Constitutionality.

.

You've chosen to graft skin color onto her position. Is that based on something she has posted previously, or on something you suspect?

1- The US had no FEDERAL immigration law until 1888

2- Then the US Supreme Court USURPED the authority to amend the Constitution because the Chinese - who were members of the "yellow" race were an emergent threat to "our people" . There were no claims that the chinese were abusing welfare or were a burden on the public fisc

3- Hoover' s Mexican Repatriation Act deported Americans of Mexican descent and concentrated on those who were brown skinned ; they deported 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican Americans

4- Prior to 1965 we had open borders with Mexico and there was never a problem -

.

Well, that didn't really answer my question, did it?

 

[Contumacious]

I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).

The current law is what needs examining. Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa. It is for seasonal, temporary work. That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa. It does not cover the exact reasons people come here. But, it's capped at 66,000 per year. That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care. They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and stealing American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "legally."

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Create a "proper" method of entry and you resolve the issue. You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S. But, the National Socialists want a brown free America. It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.

.

That is because you are racist scumbag.

The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .

Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was BEFORE Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.

Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?

.

 

[BuddyColt]

Contumacious,

I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument. Let me:

A few years ago, radio talk show host Neal Boortz claimed to have done a study wherein he started with the year 1787 and broke American history down into 25 year segments, each segment representing the working career of an individual. He wanted know what generation of Americans had it the best.

According to Boortz, between 1982 and 2007 were the years, that we had the most money, the most assets, paid the least in taxes and were the most affluent. If you can find a better twenty five year era, go ahead. Boortz credited the Reagan and Bush tax policies for this. I noticed something different, however about the U.S. being affluent.

In 1986 we had an estimated 10 MILLION people in the United States without papers and TWO MILLION more entering the U.S. without papers every year - and we had SEVEN AMNESTIES between 1986 and 2007. In 1982 our unemployment rate was nearly 10 percent and in 2000 we were under 4 percent unemployment.

How can that be? Ten percent unemployment, two million undocumented foreigners crossing an open border, seven amnesties and we cut the unemployment rate in half.

Here's a contrast for you. In 1953 the federal government began Operation Wetback and within a year all the brown people were being rounded up. The unemployment rate doubled in less than five years thereafter and we never had an unemployment that low again in our nation's history.

 

[Contumacious]

Bud,

I appreciate the effort, but you need a better argument. Let me:

Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland:



Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration

For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American people—descendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open borders—exude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?

.

 

[tigerbob]

The current law is what needs examining. Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa. It is for seasonal, temporary work. That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa. It does not cover the exact reasons people come here. But, it's capped at 66,000 per year. That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care. They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and stealing American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "legally."

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Create a "proper" method of entry and you resolve the issue. You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S. But, the National Socialists want a brown free America. It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.

.

That is because you are racist scumbag.

The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .

Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was BEFORE Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.

Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?

.

Racism (n.): A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

On that definition, nothing I said was racist. I did not attribute my comments to any particular race. You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.

On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.

Therefore, it is you who is the racist. Q.E.D.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free. I don't blame them for wanting to get away from the abject poverty and appalling social services with which many of them live in their home countries.

.

That is because you are racist scumbag.

The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .

Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was BEFORE Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.

Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?

.

Racism (n.): A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

On that definition, nothing I said was racist. I did not attribute my comments to any particular race. You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.

On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.

Therefore, it is you who is the racist. Q.E.D.

I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:


"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

 

[tigerbob]

That is because you are racist scumbag.

The Chinese were deported because they were too efficient and self-sufficient .

Prior to 1965 Mexicans came and went without a problem. That was BEFORE Lyndon Baines Johnson created the welfare state.

Are you insinuating that LBJ was chicano?

.

Racism (n.): A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

On that definition, nothing I said was racist. I did not attribute my comments to any particular race. You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.

On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.

Therefore, it is you who is the racist. Q.E.D.

I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:


"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?

 

[Contumacious]

Racism (n.): A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

On that definition, nothing I said was racist. I did not attribute my comments to any particular race. You have chosen to view them that way, I assume.

On the other hand, what you said about the Chinese was racist, because it makes a judgement about an entire named group purely on the basis of race.

Therefore, it is you who is the racist. Q.E.D.

I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:


"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?

No , I read YOUR post #45

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free

.

 

[hjmick]

 

[tigerbob]

[/B]



I was quoting your intellectual ancestors , Supreme Court "justices" who wrote the following in their opinion:


"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field..

The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the new articles of the treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges, immunities, and exemptions were extended to subjects of China in the United States which were accorded to citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, they remained strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people, or to make any change in their habits or modes of living. As they grew in numbers each year the people of the coast saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of immigration, and in the crowded millions of China, where population presses upon the means of subsistence, great danger that at no distant day that portion of our country would be overrun by them, unless prompt action was taken to restrict their immigration. The people there accordingly petitioned earnestly for protective legislation.

U.S. Supreme Court

CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?

No , I read YOUR post #45

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free

.

1. What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
2. What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
3. What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?

 

[California Girl]

Your opinion is not in a section of the United States Code.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:

enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or

eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or

attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

Hope that helps.

You call me an idiot? Can you read? The law provides no criminal penalty for improper entry. You aren't helping anything except establishing the fact that you are wrong.

It provides for either fines or imprisonment for illegally entering this country. We do not have, and cannot have, an open border. I appreciate that this is above your intellectual pay grade but there is nothing I can, or want, to do about your stupidity.

 

[California Girl]

So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?

No , I read YOUR post #45

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free

.

1. What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?
2. What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?
3. What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?

Contemptible assumes that everyone who illegally enters our country has black or brown skin. Rational people know that is not the case... there are many Europeans who also outstay their permits.... but in order for him to get on his high horse, he must pretend all illegals are brown or black.

I think he is possibly on a par with rderp and TruthMocker when it comes to intellect.

 

[Contumacious]

So i'm a racist scumbag whose intellectual ancestors are supreme court justices and who thinks LBJ was chicano.

Do you sort of make this up as you go along?

No , I read YOUR post #45

Well, I suspect a lot of illegal immigrants (yes I know you don't like the term but I use it deliberately) do come to this country on the basis of all the stuff they can get for free

.

1. What is racist about it (what race am i prejudiced against)?

Immigrants

2. What makes you think that I, in any way, would associate myself with the ruling you quoted?

The Supreme Court did not , and could not, identify the Constitutional proviso which permitted the federal government to interdict and deport aliens or classify them as "illegal" .

As a matter of fact they pointed out that they knew that the Father of the Constitution James Madison as well as Founding Father and 3rd president Thomas Jefferson had opposed federally imposed immigration laws.

But , nevertheless, ignored their position because the chinese yellow skin and their superior productivity was irritating "our people"

3. What on earth are you talking about with the LBJ thing?

Prior to 1965, we had open borders with Mexico. They would come here , make some money and take it home. There was no welfare state. So the insinuation that they came here to get "free stuff" is wholly without foundation, insulting and racist.

'nuff said.

.

 

[California Girl]

Notice the "SHOULD BE" according to what you said. Right now it is not. Founding father Thomas Paine addressed it this way:


"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine


That, sir, is what happened to a LOT of people I used to know.

I am familiar and have more than a degree of sympathy with that view, but I still do not see how requiring a person to present papers when they enter a country is an infringement of their liberty to any real degree (unless of course one takes the view that one should be able to do exactly what one wants, when one wants, and anything less is an infringement).

The current law is what needs examining. Currently, agricultural workers come here on an H1A visa. It is for seasonal, temporary work. That does not apply to the guy working at Mickey Ds or building a house.

The closest thing you have to addressing nearly two MILLION immigrants that enter and leave each year is the H1A visa. It does not cover the exact reasons people come here. But, it's capped at 66,000 per year. That doesn't even take care of Georgia much less the other 49 states.

The anti - immigrants claim that this nonexistent class of "illegal aliens" spend all day in a welfare line and all night in a hospital waiting room getting free (sic) health care. They then accuse them of cheating on their taxes and stealing American jobs, but then claim they have no problem with those people if they come here "legally."

B.S., if HALF of all the above were true, WHO WOULD WANT THAT FOR A CITIZEN?

The real issue is you need a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Create a "proper" method of entry and you resolve the issue. You get rid of birth citizenship with the Guest Worker approach and you end the B.S. But, the National Socialists want a brown free America. It just ain't gonna happen.

Thanks

We don't have enough jobs for our own citizens. We don't need more coming in without authorization to take those jobs. I'm sure there are a few fools who would prefer that our nation be an 'all white' one.... but that does not mean that everyone who wants to enforce our immigration laws are racist..... that is bullshit.

You're a rather hysterical little twit, aren't you?

 

[Liability]

According to the GOP walking across a border is equal to killing someone

False. When you have to outright lie to make what passes for a "point," that's a good clue that you have no actual point.

However, crossing the national border without the consent of the sovereign nation you are entering is at least akin to criminal trespass (which is also a crime, genius).