- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump is cool with young illegals, new tax cut proposal "coming soon", likes Merkel
Posted on 4/22/17 at 4:47 am to blueboy
Posted on 4/22/17 at 4:47 am to blueboy
quote:
Unless his tax cut comes with an equally massive spending cut (it won't), Trump will in the fiscal sense become GWB 2.0.
except that every tax cut has brought in greater tax revenues -- the problem is and always has been the excessive spending
0
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:00 am to dcbl
quote:
frick them, they would leave their children? poor moral quality people like that have got to go
Compared to where many are coming from, they consider leaving their kids here if they are US citizens to be the most loving thing they could do for them, considering the circumstances.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:11 am to THRILLHO
quote:
So you support anchor babies? Should everyone in the world be allowed to plan a vacation with a pregnant woman, let her have her child here, then give each parent citizenship?
I think we should do something on the front end that doesn't allow 7 month pregnant women to come here and then leave after the baby is born. The Chinese do that a lot and the kid gets US citizenship, goes back to China, and comes back here at 18. That is wrong and should be stopped.
As for the rest, US law is pretty clear and has been. It is only an Ann Coulter fantasy that would get rid of birthright citizenship, and no matter how much you complain, we would never retroactively strip it from those who already have it.
I'm totally against illegal immigration, by the way. I don't want any more to come here illegally. So, future anchor babies would mean their parents came here illegally in the first place, unless they came legally and had the baby on a visa.
I care more about what is, than just opinions.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:19 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Compared to where many are coming from, they consider leaving their kids here if they are US citizens to be the most loving thing they could do for them, considering the circumstances.
The most loving thing they could have done for their children, is to come here legally, so they are not put in this position.
People act as if there is no way they can come here legally. There is.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:24 am to AlaTiger
quote:
that would get rid of birthright citizenship, and no matter how much you complain, we would never retroactively strip it from those who already have it.
Birthright citizenship was intended for babies born in the US and were in the country illegally. When something happens because of an illegal action, it should be null and void. The only reason this happens is because the parents know their kids will get citizenship, and then they get to stay, too.
We have gone down the amnesty road a couple of times already. We still haven't learned that it does not work. Giving an entire set of illegals amnesty/citizenship only emboldens more to try the same thing....and thus far, it has worked.
As for your idea of not allowing women in the country that are 8 months pregnant? That would be profiling, or women's rights groups would be up in arms....I can name a dozen ways that will not work.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:29 am to DawgsLife
Birthright Citizenship has been settled Constitutional law since the late 1800s with 9-0 SCOTUS decisions. You have your opinion, but you have a lot of work to do to make it any more than that.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:33 am to DawgsLife
quote:
People act as if there is no way they can come here legally. There is.
I'm against illegal immigration totally and do not want anyone to come here illegally. Ever.
But, how can a poor person from Mexico or Guatemala come here legally? What is the process for that? It takes over 20 years, if they would be accepted at all.
Again, they should not come illegally. But, there really isn't a legal way for them to come either.
The answer to that is to either create temporary worker visas to meet the needs of businesses, or just don't come here.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:37 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Birthright Citizenship has been settled Constitutional law since the late 1800s with 9-0 SCOTUS decisions. You have your opinion, but you have a lot of work to do to make it any more than that.
Again, in the 1800's we did not have a problem with people coming here having babies then wanting to stay. That is a newer occurrence. Yes, the overall law may have been around, but the original purpose of the law was not to allow illegals to stay in the country. If you care to look up the actual cases, I think you will find that to be the case.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:41 am to DawgsLife
I understand your opinion. And, I know that Trump relied upon some people to tell him that. But, it is a fringe, irrelevant view at this point. The Court has been clear. I mean, I guess you could stack the Court and revisit this and overturn Birthright Citizenship, but that is going to be a long, hard road.
But, it's possible.
But, it's possible.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:43 am to AlaTiger
quote:
But, how can a poor person from Mexico or Guatemala come here legally? What is the process for that? It takes over 20 years, if they would be accepted at all.
They do it like a poor person from the Ukraine, or any other country would do it. Some have been coming here and been getting sent back for 20 years. There are no guarantees in life. That does not mean you have the right to break the laws. if you show a lack of respect for the laws of the land you say you want to live in, then you shouldn't go there.
quote:
Again, they should not come illegally. But, there really isn't a legal way for them to come either.
Again. Yes there is. Are you saying we have zero legal Mexicans in this country?
quote:
The answer to that is to either create temporary worker visas to meet the needs of businesses, or just don't come here.
The needs of businesses should have nothing to do with immigration law.
quote:
or just don't come here.
If you cannot come here legally, then this is the answer. We (The United States) cannot take every poor person in the world just because they want to come.
If you advocate for every poor Mexican to come here, how can you not advocate for every other poor person in the world to come here.
Can you name me one single advanced country in the world that has no immigration laws?
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:45 am to AlaTiger
quote:
I understand your opinion. And, I know that Trump relied upon some people to tell him that. But, it is a fringe, irrelevant view at this point. The Court has been clear. I mean, I guess you could stack the Court and revisit this and overturn Birthright Citizenship, but that is going to be a long, hard road.
Don't want to overturn Birthright Citizenship. Not for people who are legally in our country. that is what it was intended for. people who are in our country legally serving in the military, working, visiting....but not for illegals.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:49 am to AlaTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/22/17 at 5:50 am
Posted on 4/22/17 at 5:56 am to DawgsLife
You have poor reading comprehension skills. You really do and you should work on it if you're going to comment here.
I'm not advocating for any poor people to come here at all.
I am totally against illegal immigration, visa overstays, illegal border crossings, all of it.
The needs of business have ALWAYS dictated immigration policy.
I don't want poor Mexicans to come here, but you said they should do it legally. The number of visas we give to Mexicans is relatively small and the backlog is very long and takes over 20 years. Yes, Mexicans come legally, but it is very hard.
I'm not advocating for anyone to come here at all.
I'm not advocating for any poor people to come here at all.
I am totally against illegal immigration, visa overstays, illegal border crossings, all of it.
The needs of business have ALWAYS dictated immigration policy.
I don't want poor Mexicans to come here, but you said they should do it legally. The number of visas we give to Mexicans is relatively small and the backlog is very long and takes over 20 years. Yes, Mexicans come legally, but it is very hard.
I'm not advocating for anyone to come here at all.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 6:46 am to Kafka
quote:
anybody here illegally should be deported
Yeah but unlike you they work, so shut up
Posted on 4/22/17 at 9:52 am to AlaTiger
They ruled like that because the issue was over freed slaves and there citizenship. The case you are referring to is one of the first cases after the passage of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is the teeth of the 13th amendment.
The purpose of the 14th amendment was to ensure freed slaves were considered citizens because although they were free many states--not just confederate states-- did not consider them citizens. This ensured they received equal protection under the law by proclaiming the freed slaves were citizens because they were born here. An argument is that slaves were here legally because slavery and the slave trade were legal at that time.
The fourteenth amendment was never suppose to be about tourist and illegals having kids in America for the expressed reason to remain in the country because of the cold. The drafters, which included only states not in rebellion, of this amendment were only concerned with preventing the South from kicking out former slaves.
This is the problem with the living breathing document people, original intent is important. The living doc people use this as an excuse to avoid the amendment process. They Manipulate the constitutional text to fit their agenda.
The 14th amendment is vaguely written. This why gaY marriage was allowed. The Original intent of the 14th amendment was never about gay marriage. I'm pro gay marriage but it should not have been decided by the court, rather by congress or amendment.
The reasoning behind the Hodges's case is so bad that is opens the door for other groups claiming protected class to claim the same thing. Such as Poligimist, nambla, farm animal lovers, etc to claim equal protection for the same reason. People will say that is crazy, actually it's not because 50 years ago people never would have thought gay marriage as even plausible.
A congressional law or amendment is the proper way to ensure desired results. Now only an amendment can prevent poligamy and etc from using the same SOCTUS reasoning to get their agenda passed. Historically the Supreme Court rarely over turns it's previous decisions.
The purpose of the 14th amendment was to ensure freed slaves were considered citizens because although they were free many states--not just confederate states-- did not consider them citizens. This ensured they received equal protection under the law by proclaiming the freed slaves were citizens because they were born here. An argument is that slaves were here legally because slavery and the slave trade were legal at that time.
The fourteenth amendment was never suppose to be about tourist and illegals having kids in America for the expressed reason to remain in the country because of the cold. The drafters, which included only states not in rebellion, of this amendment were only concerned with preventing the South from kicking out former slaves.
This is the problem with the living breathing document people, original intent is important. The living doc people use this as an excuse to avoid the amendment process. They Manipulate the constitutional text to fit their agenda.
The 14th amendment is vaguely written. This why gaY marriage was allowed. The Original intent of the 14th amendment was never about gay marriage. I'm pro gay marriage but it should not have been decided by the court, rather by congress or amendment.
The reasoning behind the Hodges's case is so bad that is opens the door for other groups claiming protected class to claim the same thing. Such as Poligimist, nambla, farm animal lovers, etc to claim equal protection for the same reason. People will say that is crazy, actually it's not because 50 years ago people never would have thought gay marriage as even plausible.
A congressional law or amendment is the proper way to ensure desired results. Now only an amendment can prevent poligamy and etc from using the same SOCTUS reasoning to get their agenda passed. Historically the Supreme Court rarely over turns it's previous decisions.
This post was edited on 4/22/17 at 10:10 am
Posted on 4/22/17 at 10:23 am to THRILLHO
Sorry for the rant- I wish people would read about the "law of unintended consequences"
Even the most noble move in the present can lead to future severe adverse consequences.
Even the most noble move in the present can lead to future severe adverse consequences.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 10:37 am to THRILLHO
Nuestro Presidente!
Posted on 4/22/17 at 11:32 am to THRILLHO
We shouldn't be deporting an extremely hard working demographic.
Posted on 4/22/17 at 12:10 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children and now here illegally can "rest easy," President Donald Trump said Friday, telling the "dreamers" they will not be targets for deportation under his immigration policies.
He might want to tell Jeffy Bo, because that Keebler left the tree on this
Posted on 4/22/17 at 12:14 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
So you support anchor babies?
Trump himself is the child of an immigrant, all of his children but Tiffany are children of immigrant mothers.
This post was edited on 4/22/17 at 12:15 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News