America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by tailgater. 163 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234
Why has illegal immigration decreased?
tailgater Offline
#151 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
seems funny to me that the OP addressed the DECREASE in illegal immigration, and the thread has evolved into hand-wringing anxiety over not addressing the alleged growing menace.

Um, it seems to be trending the way most want, save the outrage for a real issue.

Sometimes you get what you want by doing nothing, or certainly without changing the Constitution.


Never let facts get in the way of a spirited debate.
DrafterX Offline
#152 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I don't think you're allowed to say Anchor Baby anymore... Shame on you
TMCTLT Offline
#153 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tailgater wrote:
Actually, in this instance his notions are not archaic at all. Quite the opposite.

An Anchor Baby is a bigger deal today because of the social services we provide. This is a newer phenomenon, whereas historically immigrants came here for a better life but at least had to WORK for it. Now they pop out the kid north of the Rio Grande and voila! Instant access to your tax dollar.

Being born on our soil should afford citizenship only if the mother is here legally. The 14th amendment doesn't address that issue, although some would argue that it's common sense. Still, from a legal sense the anchor baby is a real concern and it certainly should be addressed very soon.

In any event, it's not by any means an "archaic" notion.




Thanks TG, Tony is well Tony d'oh! ....and I'm Sorry I high jacked your thread please accept my apology.

Paul
TMCTLT Offline
#154 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
Because you are a hothead and convinced that your archaic notions are so right. We should call you small paul.



You're damn right I'm hot about this matter being ignored for SO long by SO MANY admins. To include this one as one of THE Worst....all for the sake of votes....and for the life of me, I cannot understand why more people are not bothered by the growing problem, it's like ignoring an ever growing cancer one that will be all consuming. And your juvenile behavior of name calling etc. IS juvenile, but by all means call me what you like
tonygraz Offline
#155 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
Gee, you sound like you are about 80 - years old and IQ.
TMCTLT Offline
#156 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
Gee, you sound like you are about 80 - years old and IQ.




Case in point ^^^^ never anything of substance to offer just chit like this.
tonygraz Offline
#157 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
tailgater wrote:
Actually, in this instance his notions are not archaic at all. Quite the opposite.

An Anchor Baby is a bigger deal today because of the social services we provide. This is a newer phenomenon, whereas historically immigrants came here for a better life but at least had to WORK for it. Now they pop out the kid north of the Rio Grande and voila! Instant access to your tax dollar.

Being born on our soil should afford citizenship only if the mother is here legally. The 14th amendment doesn't address that issue, although some would argue that it's common sense. Still, from a legal sense the anchor baby is a real concern and it certainly should be addressed very soon.

In any event, it's not by any means an "archaic" notion.


Perhaps you should re-read what I said earlier in the thread, it should deflate your antagonism.
tonygraz Offline
#158 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
TMCTLT wrote:
Case in point ^^^^ never anything of substance to offer just chit like this.



Strange you should say that, since all you generally offer is opinion and defend it as fact. Just recently I asked you where you got some information you posted as fact and there was no reply. You seem to think here that the 14th amendment isn't a problem or involved and get angry when wrong and challenged.
Abrignac Offline
#159 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
As long as conditions are favorable for people to use Anchor Baby Syndrome the problem will persist. IMHO it will be next to impossible to change it because of the hurdles that must be cleared to amend the Constitution. To do so would require far more than a majority and at the moment not enough support exists. An easier way would be legislation penalizing employers for hiring those workers. Hmmm, I think this has been said before. But, absent a President who agrees this won't happen because such legislation will be vetoed. Though possibly overridden by the house, the Senate is much less likely.

Paul, you assume my lack of outrage and my post regarding the Construction somehow means I'm not concerned about this issue. If you re-read all of my posts, nowhere will you see anything where I advocate for welcoming illegeals with open arms. You only see what you want to see and attack those who don't agree word for word with your posts. I suggest you step back from the tree line so you can see what's in the forest.
TMCTLT Offline
#160 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Considering the FACT that there is NOTHING we can do about this issue as neither political party is even remotely interested in stemming the tide of Illegal Invaders and their Anchor Babies you are correct about our inability to even address the problem let alone fix it.

I am done posting anything in the politics forum....I will however more than likely be casting my vote when the time comes for Trump as he is The Only voice out there bringing attention to this Glaring Problem. I'm done casting my vote for either one of the Two Selected parties.....they've become one and the same.
Abrignac Offline
#161 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
I agree with you more than you think. To a point, both parties are very much alike. Both are beholden to the highest bidder. Congress accomplishes very little. They are too busy posturing to negotiate any meaningful legislation. Prior to Gingrich assuming power members of Congress actually worked across the aisle with each other. To legislate requires a large amount of give and take. All we see now is uncrossable lines resulting an almost complete standstill.

Hence a ripeness for Trump. It's doubtful he'll make it on the Republican ticket since currently about 58% of the Republican electorate when polled say the will vote to nominate anyone but him. Assuming he doesn't get the nomination, though I hope he does if for no other reason than he's willing to buck the system, there's a chance he'll run as a third party which will hurt the Republican nominee much more than the Democrat. Polling shows him much, much less popular with Democrats than Republicans.

The Republican Party needs to redefine itself and return to its roots. At one time it was the party of the people. It needs to once and for all eliminate any talk of a flat or consumption tax from its vocabulary. Such taxes are very unfriendly to people whose incomes are below what's considered wealthy. It also needs to drop its religious platform. In addition to the 2nd Amendment, the country is much more secular than they realize and such a message turns off a large number of voters. It needs to reevaluate its support of vouchers which on paper sound great, but in reality is pretty much a joke. The Dept. of Education funds schools based on total enrollment as of October or November. One needs to ask school principals about the influx of voucher students coming from so-called charter type schools after the money has been dispersed to those schools. Those schools have to educate those students even though the Charters have gotten paid and are not required to refund any excesses.

Making those and other changes, the gain would far outnumber any losses. By doing so, they would have more power to shape conservative legislation.
tailgater Offline
#162 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tonygraz wrote:
Perhaps you should re-read what I said earlier in the thread, it should deflate your antagonism.


Perhaps you should look up "antagonism" and re-read my post.

How was I being antagonistic?
I don't need to comb through the posts to see if you might have been relevant early on. I was responding to the post, not to your entirety of thought since the day I originated this thread.

OK.
THAT may have bordered on antagonistic. But unless you're a seer I doubt you were referring to THIS post.



tailgater Offline
#163 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
TMCTLT wrote:
Thanks TG, Tony is well Tony d'oh! ....and I'm Sorry I high jacked your thread please accept my apology.

Paul


I don't think it was you who hijacked anything. It's just how the threads evolve sometimes.
No harm, no foul.
Now you and Tony need to kiss and make up.
LOL
Joe.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234