TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Illegal Immigration "Compromise" Bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Illegal Immigration "Compromise" Bill - Page 3

post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
I guess you must have been reading statistics other than the ones you listed to get that HALF number.
Hm. I suppose I was being a bit generous to your side, and overgeneralizing the numerous results for the purpose of being concise. Apologies.
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Hm. I suppose I was being a bit generous to your side, and overgeneralizing the numerous results for the purpose of being concise. Apologies.
Hmmm, not sure what lines you were reading, I saw a generous amount AGAINST the bill as written.

If you see how many of us here have spoken AGAINST it, that shows the same result.

To infer that our opinons here are not credible enough and classify us here as extremists to someone in the UK is quite offensive to me. My opinion counts as much here as yours, or anyone elses. And for you to have told that poster that "we're a bunch of extremists" is to me an effort to invalidate our opinions.
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
To infer that our opinons here are not credible enough and classify us here as extremists to someone in the UK is quite offensive to me. My opinion counts as much here as yours, or anyone elses. And for you to have told that poster that "we're a bunch of extremists" is to me an effort to invalidate our opinions.
I did not say your opinions weren't credible, I said a thread in IMO-- any thread-- is not representative, necessarily, of the opinions of all of America. I did not say your opinion doesn't count, but you did personally attack me and say I have no opinions of my own. And if I invalidated your opinions by saying "the people who post most here are extremists (myself included)" then I invalidated my own too.

Anyway, I remembered why I quit posting in immigration threads.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.
post #64 of 84
Folks, can we keep it friendly, please? The comments are getting rather personal. Thanks.
post #65 of 84
Here is an interesting little tidbit. Look what a Sheriff in Florida is doing.
Since the Feds don't do their job enforcing existing immigration laws, he decided to help them. Good for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/...gal_immigrants
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Here is an interesting little tidbit. Look what a Sheriff in Florida is doing.
Since the Feds don't do their job enforcing existing immigration laws, he decided to help them. Good for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/...gal_immigrants
Good link!

Is the ACLU ever going to figure out that the illegals are NOT Americans and have no civil liberties here?

Although the paper should be required to help locate that illegal they interviewd so he can be turned in as well.
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Good link!

Is the ACLU ever going to figure out that the illegals are NOT Americans and have no civil liberties here?
ACLU do something that makes sense? please. That would never happen.
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
ACLU do something that makes sense? please. That would never happen.
I know. I musta warped into some alternate universe.
post #69 of 84
A mild , the current bill has been squelched.

Now we need to keep on our representatives to get enforcement of what laws we have already.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
A mild , the current bill has been squelched.

Now we need to keep on our representatives to get enforcement of what laws we have already.
a mild ?? I'd say
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
A mild , the current bill has been squelched.

Now we need to keep on our representatives to get enforcement of what laws we have already.
Made my Day
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamela View Post
a mild ?? I'd say
Well, I'm not wanting to celebrate too much until they do more about getting the ones that are here illegally rounded up and the border secured.
post #73 of 84
Yeah well if they could do some of that by the time they get back around to it in 2028 maybe it wouldn't be to bad
post #74 of 84
GRRRRR.... my rep has changed his tune. After he voted YES for the cloture yesterday, today he was picketed and now he's suddenly decided he doesn't want it anymore.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/13587224/detail.html

I hope the fifty emails I sent his office helped.
post #75 of 84
I wouldn't even try and guess what went on here
post #76 of 84
Thread Starter 
I think this guy really sums it up for me:

Quote:
Enforcement issues were a main concern for Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, who said his "no" vote sent a crystal clear message "that the American people want us to start with enforcement, both at the border and at the workplace, and don't want promises. They want action, they want results, they want proof, because they've heard all the promises before."
Instead of passing new, BS laws, how about enforcing the laws we already have? Why would new laws make any difference at all for enforcement??
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
I think this guy really sums it up for me:



Instead of passing new, BS laws, how about enforcing the laws we already have? Why would new laws make any difference at all for enforcement??
Vitter is good. So is Sessions from Alabama. Lois and I were both watching C-Span the past couple nights, and he really got into his point of view. He was very much arguing for the American people.
post #78 of 84
Yes Mr Sessions sure did, must have heard me thinking I applaud him We don't need more BS we need action. I was trying to keep an open mind but when they just don't get the message that it should be what the American People want not what they want. For 20 some years they have had a plan, and it never came to pass, they never did a thing. Do they think we all just feel off a turnip truck that we are going to trust anymore promises. This by no means has made me want to go out and vote anymore then I did the day before yesterday.. This is not about Immigrants Its about Illegal. To hand them things they plain and simple are NOT entitled to is way wrong, and to think they thought we would fall for that its pretty sad. So I say Thanks to all the people who did the absolute right thing IMO
post #79 of 84
I know jus soli applies in the U.S., but why in the world can't they limit it to children born to citizens and documented, i.e., legal, aliens? I see people arguing that the children of many illegal aliens are U.S. citizens, and wonder why that is allowed to be the case?

jus soli vs. jus sanguinis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I know jus soli applies in the U.S., but why in the world can't they limit it to children born to citizens and documented, i.e., legal, aliens? I see people arguing that the children of many illegal aliens are U.S. citizens, and wonder why that is allowed to be the case?

jus soli vs. jus sanguinis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Lois sent me this link her husband found about the "anchor babies", Tricia.

http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html

"The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. "

IMO, if the 14th Amendment was being applied correctly, neither children or their parents are legal.
post #81 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Lois sent me this link her husband found about the "anchor babies", Tricia.

http://www.theamericanresistance.com...or_babies.html

"The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. "

IMO, if the 14th Amendment was being applied correctly, neither children or their parents are legal.
Jus soli made sense in the late 19th/early 20th century, for the reasons stated in that link, but surely not nowadays?

Recently, a German woman gave birth on a Delta flight between Germany and the U.S., and the baby was therefore legally entitled to American citizenship. Germany has residence requirements (which definitely entitle me to apply for German citizenship), but the crazy thing is that jus sanguinis also entitles me to citizenship, should I care to take advantage of it.

I believe the criteria have to be updated.
post #82 of 84
No, it makes no sense anymore. I understand back 200 years ago when they were looking to gain citizens to the New Country, but now?

Especially in lieu of all the benefits that are immediately gained by the family of the child. Benefits that many people whose families have been here for many generations are not eligible for, even when falling on hard times.

I heard on one of the TV news shows that the main force behind the children being considered legal is the religious community, as they want to extend open arms to all people. That is fine too, I salute them for that, but not when it aides someone who is committing a felony by being here illegally.
post #83 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
GRRRRR.... my rep has changed his tune. After he voted YES for the cloture yesterday, today he was picketed and now he's suddenly decided he doesn't want it anymore.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/13587224/detail.html

I hope the fifty emails I sent his office helped.

neet after reading and watching the news, I think they called to bring the it up again, Just to kill it for this congress.

by the way the stuff i saw on the news this morning showed the polls of the americans
50% of american people aganist it
22% for
28% did not know.
lol i guess it goes to show you it depends on where they do there polling makes all the difference
post #84 of 84
When I said half, I was talking about the general sentiment towards illegal immigrants. Not this particular bill. Which is what the poster I was responding to originally was also talking about.

Just to clarify.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Illegal Immigration "Compromise" Bill