I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:24:27 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?


What is broken is the actual enforcement of the U.S. Immigration LAW.
President Obalah at the White Mosque is the reason. He refuses to
allow sworn ICE officers to enforce the law, which is a violation of
his Oath. Americans actually voted for him.

Spit.

ChairMan wrote:
I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?



Can you say ENFORCEMENT??? I have nothing against those who would like
to live in this country, but I do for those who feel they do not need to
obey the law. Like you said, try to do what they did in another
country, and you will land in a cell.

Allowing people to enter the country illegally and stay is like having
someone break into your home and expect you to set up a bedroom for them.

On 11/22/2014 2:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:24:27 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?


What is broken is the actual enforcement of the U.S. Immigration LAW.
President Obalah at the White Mosque is the reason. He refuses to
allow sworn ICE officers to enforce the law, which is a violation of
his Oath. Americans actually voted for him.

Spit.


Exactly. We've had good immigration laws for over 100 years. They just
need to be enforced. We should allow immigration, they should just come
in under the laws that applied to our grandparents.

Polls are wrong. They just say we need fixes but don't mention
enforcement of existing laws which is what most people want.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:04:38 -0500, Frank
wrote:

What is broken is the actual enforcement of the U.S. Immigration LAW.
President Obalah at the White Mosque is the reason. He refuses to
allow sworn ICE officers to enforce the law, which is a violation of
his Oath. Americans actually voted for him.

Spit.


Exactly. We've had good immigration laws for over 100 years. They just
need to be enforced. We should allow immigration, they should just come
in under the laws that applied to our grandparents.

Polls are wrong. They just say we need fixes but don't mention
enforcement of existing laws which is what most people want.

My LEO experience goes back a ways. Immigration (INS) and Border
Patrol were different agencies. BP was the best.
INS were a crowd of idiots.

Haitians were pretty much placed in removal. Cubans from the Mariel
boat lift, stayed. The State Department announced one day Cubans would
be returned to Castro (never told prison officials). Them *******s
burned the U.S. Penitentiary, Atlanta and FCI Talledega, Alabama.

Cuban immigration to the U.S. has been ~ 25,000 in recent years.

The real problem as I see it is that this is about the 4th or 5th time that a US President has declared a general amnisty to illegal aliens.

Lots of LAW ABIDING immigrants wait their turn to come to the USA only to be told that the US is declaring a general amnisty for illegal immigrants, and therefore they won't be accepting any more legal immigrants this year or next.

You can see how that encourages law abiding legal immigrants to go the illegal route. They just get across the border on a visitor's permit (or whatever it's called) and then don't go back. Or, they wait until they're across the border to start a family. Each kid born in the USA is an American citizen and an anchor that will keep them in the USA.

What the USA needs to do is send illegals back where they came from and only allow LEGAL immigration to the USA. As it stands now, you guys are sending entirely the wrong message by declaring a general amnisty every couple of years to everyone that's in your country illegally. It rewards those that get into your country illegally and infuriates those who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn.

On 11/22/2014 5:08 PM, philo wrote:
I am not saying I am in favor of breaking the laws...just saying
though...the Mexicans are coming here to make a better life for
themselves ...NOT to blow things up like /some/ people I've heard
of...so I can't say I can blame them much.

I'm not pleased with elected reps who make
a point to give tax payer dollars to folks.
Even to the point of recruiting, advertising,
and so on to get more welfare leeches signed
up.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 11/22/2014 4:45 PM, nestork wrote:
The real problem as I see it is that this is about the 4th or 5th time
that a US President has declared a general amnisty to illegal aliens.

Lots of LAW ABIDING immigrants wait their turn to come to the USA only
to be told that the US is declaring a general amnisty for illegal
immigrants, and therefore they won't be accepting any more legal
immigrants this year or next.

You can see how that encourages law abiding legal immigrants to go the
illegal route. They just get across the border on a visitor's permit
(or whatever it's called) and then don't go back. Or, they wait until
they're across the border to start a family. Each kid born in the USA
is an American citizen and an anchor that will keep them in the USA.

What the USA needs to do is send illegals back where they came from and
only allow LEGAL immigration to the USA. As it stands now, you guys are
sending entirely the wrong message by declaring a general amnisty every
couple of years to everyone that's in your country illegally. It
rewards those that get into your country illegally and infuriates those
who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn.




At least a few people in the USA share this view.
Sadly, none of us who share this view hold elected
office, and can do much about the situation.

A few groups have formed such as Ranch Rescue and
Border Rescue. They have tried to assist the legal
border agents. With varying level of success.

With the present lack of enforcement, I'm surprised
there isn't more 3 S behavior. But then, the third
S prevents news from getting out.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 11/22/14, 5:08 PM, philo wrote:
I am not saying I am in favor of breaking the laws...just saying
though...the Mexicans are coming here to make a better life for
themselves ...NOT to blow things up like /some/ people I've heard
of...so I can't say I can blame them much.

Are you talking about me? I don't know what they're saying behind my
back, but I have to blow things to avoid riding on flat tires.

Those who fund American politicians are ambivalent about immigration.
The economy needs the work ethic of uneducated immigrants because
Americans won't do some jobs well regardless of wages. If employers
can't get immigrants legally, they'll hire them illegally.

The first step is to abolish college. Ben Franklin said it's
unAmerican. He said the average freshman is a blockhead, and the
average graduate is a blockhead who has learned to close a door elegantly.

The second step is to abolish compulsory education, recognizing the
inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kids
are forced to sit on their ass 12 years, and all that counts is figuring
out what to say to please the authorities, whether or not the kid agrees
or understands. Who can expect graduates to have a work ethic?

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 11/22/2014 5:08 PM, philo wrote:
I am not saying I am in favor of breaking the laws...just saying
though...the Mexicans are coming here to make a better life for
themselves ...NOT to blow things up like /some/ people I've heard
of...so I can't say I can blame them much.

I'm not pleased with elected reps who make
a point to give tax payer dollars to folks.
Even to the point of recruiting, advertising,
and so on to get more welfare leeches signed
up.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

are you in favor of 6 million more people paying into social security
without the ability to receive any of those benefits?

In article ,
nestork wrote:


What the USA needs to do is send illegals back where they came from and
only allow LEGAL immigration to the USA. As it stands now, you guys are
sending entirely the wrong message by declaring a general amnisty every
couple of years to everyone that's in your country illegally. It
rewards those that get into your country illegally and infuriates those
who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn.

this is actually what I favor. an immediate roundup of all illegals,
even to the point of paying a bounty for their capture, and then just
dump them back over the border. I mean the Mexican Government wouldn't
interfere and think of all the new jobs in farm, hotels, nanny,
construction, landscaping, etc, not to mention the sudden availability
of millions of housing units. although the landlords won't be happy
about it, but they could sell all the belongings and cars left behind.

In article , J Burns
wrote:

The first step is to abolish college. Ben Franklin said it's
unAmerican. He said the average freshman is a blockhead, and the
average graduate is a blockhead who has learned to close a door elegantly.

The second step is to abolish compulsory education, recognizing the
inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kids
are forced to sit on their ass 12 years, and all that counts is figuring
out what to say to please the authorities, whether or not the kid agrees
or understands. Who can expect graduates to have a work ethic?

amazing that Franklin knew you

In article ,
"ChairMan" wrote:

I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?

the real interesting aspect of this is that when the SouthWest became a
part of the United States, any Mexicans living there automatically
became citizens as did their offspring, and their offspring, and their
offspring, etc. Imagine that those Mexicans in the SouthWest decided for
whatever reason to emigrate back to what was left of Mexico but never
gave up their citizenship, imagine that some of their offspring several
generations removed didn't actually know that or that they did and they
aren't illegal at all and when they come back they show documentation
that their great-great-great grandpappy and grandmammy lived on a ranch
in Texas at the time

"ChairMan" wrote in message

I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find
anyone to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a
set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help
of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear
anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but
no one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl
be
in jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is
BROKEN?

The main thing that is broken - other than non-enforcement - is the anchor
baby thing.

Why in the world should the child of an alien be given American
citizenship just because its mother happened to be in the country at the
time? Far better to award citizenship only to those whose mothers have
American citizenship, either by birth or naturalization. Note that papa's
citizenship doesn't count.

All we need is to change the law. What, change long standing precedent?
Sure, why not...for most of the time the US has existed, only caucasions
could become naturalized Americans and they changed that.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 11/22/2014 6:57 PM, trader_4 wrote:

How about George Soros or some other kook lib starts 747 service from
Haiti, India, Sudan.... Bring them all here, they just want a better life.
If people can walk across the southern border from Mexico, Guatemala,
Honduras, why not just let everyone and anyone in? And BTW, I don't think
the idea of some lib organization doing that is far fetched either. We're
about one step away.

Rush Limbaugh had some fun with that a couple decade
ago in, was it San Francisco? Bussed in a bunch of
homeless.


-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article
,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In ar
the real interesting aspect of this is that when the SouthWest became a
part of the United States, any Mexicans living there automatically
became citizens as did their offspring, and their offspring, and their
offspring, etc. Imagine that those Mexicans in the SouthWest decided for
whatever reason to emigrate back to what was left of Mexico but never
gave up their citizenship, imagine that some of their offspring several
generations removed didn't actually know that or that they did and they
aren't illegal at all and when they come back they show documentation
that their great-great-great grandpappy and grandmammy lived on a ranch
in Texas at the time

I love these fantasy scenarios.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On 11/23/2014 7:58 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Rush Limbaugh had some fun with that a couple decade
ago in, was it San Francisco? Bussed in a bunch of
homeless.


What we need is a 1-for-1 exchange program.
We, the US taxpayers, trade a willing-to-work immigrant for a lazy obese entitled disability fraudster.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:22:19 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

The main thing that is broken - other than non-enforcement - is the anchor
baby thing.

Why in the world should the child of an alien be given American
citizenship just because its mother happened to be in the country at the
time? Far better to award citizenship only to those whose mothers have
American citizenship, either by birth or naturalization. Note that papa's
citizenship doesn't count.

All we need is to change the law. What, change long standing precedent?
Sure, why not...for most of the time the US has existed, only caucasions
could become naturalized Americans and they changed that.

That pesky Constitution gets in the way, huh?

Good luck repelling the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In article ,
Oren wrote:

That pesky Constitution gets in the way, huh?

Good luck repelling the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But that is a (relatively) new interpretation. The main reason for the
amendment was to codify the citizenship of newly freed slaves when some
people started playing games saying they weren't really citizens.
In fact, some of the early discussion in Congress suggested this very
narrow focus.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the
14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national
law a citizen of the United States. This will ***not, of course, include
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the
Government of the United States**, but will include every other class of
persons." Emphasis mine.

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the
laws; but he is ***not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the
word..." ***.
The subject jurisdiction phrase was carefully chosen to exclude
American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the
United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully
in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on
the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United
States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The Supremes early on agreed confirming this restricted
interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases"
[83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case,
the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude
"children of ministers, consuls, and ***citizens of foreign states born
within the United States***." (Emphasis mine) In Elk, the American
Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law
required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the
jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their
political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the **status of the parents
determines the citizenship of the child***. To qualify children for
birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe
"direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely
subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States
citizens.

On the other side of the issue, the first decision one Wong Kim Ark,
a child of Chinese immigrants, was born in California in 1873. He
traveled to China, but upon return to the United States was barred from
entering. Ark objected, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court in
1898. In a 6-2 decision, Ark was declared a U.S. citizen by the 14th
Amendment, and thus exempt from the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The next batch of case included Perkins v. Elg in 1939, and
Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 which dealt with the specific rights of the
citizenship clause, and the Court has consistently declared that any
child born within the precincts of the U.S. is a legal citizen.

1982's Plyer v. Doe stated that the undocumented immigrants who
reside in a specific state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state.
In addition, the majority opinion stated, "no plausible distinction with
respect to the Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between
resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and
resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
So the automatic citizenship is currently encrusted in law, but
there is evidence that this may not be all that in tune with what those
originally involved in it thought would happen.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:16:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

That pesky Constitution gets in the way, huh?

Good luck repelling the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But that is a (relatively) new interpretation. The main reason for the
amendment was to codify the citizenship of newly freed slaves when some
people started playing games saying they weren't really citizens.
In fact, some of the early discussion in Congress suggested this very
narrow focus.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the
14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national
law a citizen of the United States. This will ***not, of course, include
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the
Government of the United States**, but will include every other class of
persons." Emphasis mine.

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the
laws; but he is ***not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the
word..." ***.
The subject jurisdiction phrase was carefully chosen to exclude
American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the
United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully
in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on
the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United
States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The Supremes early on agreed confirming this restricted
interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases"
[83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case,
the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude
"children of ministers, consuls, and ***citizens of foreign states born
within the United States***." (Emphasis mine) In Elk, the American
Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law
required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the
jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their
political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the **status of the parents
determines the citizenship of the child***. To qualify children for
birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe
"direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely
subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States
citizens.

On the other side of the issue, the first decision one Wong Kim Ark,
a child of Chinese immigrants, was born in California in 1873. He
traveled to China, but upon return to the United States was barred from
entering. Ark objected, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court in
1898. In a 6-2 decision, Ark was declared a U.S. citizen by the 14th
Amendment, and thus exempt from the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The next batch of case included Perkins v. Elg in 1939, and
Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 which dealt with the specific rights of the
citizenship clause, and the Court has consistently declared that any
child born within the precincts of the U.S. is a legal citizen.

1982's Plyer v. Doe stated that the undocumented immigrants who
reside in a specific state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state.
In addition, the majority opinion stated, "no plausible distinction with
respect to the Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between
resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and
resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Interesting background. Thanks.

So the automatic citizenship is currently encrusted in law, but
there is evidence that this may not be all that in tune with what those
originally involved in it thought would happen.

That makes sense. They never imagined we would have president in the
21st century acting as a King, I'm sure.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:52:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Lots of LAW ABIDING immigrants wait their turn to come to the USA only
to be told that the US is declaring a general amnisty for illegal
immigrants, and therefore they won't be accepting any more legal
immigrants this year or next.


AFAIK, that isn't happening. I haven't heard anyone saying that the
number of legal immigrants is being affected one way or the other.

I did hear a talking-head mention something related to this, the other
day. There could be delays and processing applications for those
applying legally for citizenship. Man hours taken away to process the
illegal's - at the tune of 6 Million.

On 11/23/2014 1:56 PM, Oren wrote:

AFAIK, that isn't happening. I haven't heard anyone saying that the
number of legal immigrants is being affected one way or the other.

I did hear a talking-head mention something related to this, the other
day. There could be delays and processing applications for those
applying legally for citizenship. Man hours taken away to process the
illegal's - at the tune of 6 Million.


So, the law breakers go to the head of the line,
reverse of what Oh Bomb Us said.

As usual.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

ChairMan wrote:
I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.
Outside of our borders being porous, what exactly is broken? We have a set
amount of people that can immmigrate each year, besides speeding up the
process what is broken?
The only problem that I see is the anchor babies that create the broken
family and the failure to enforce our existing laws.
Am I missing something? My parents immigrated from Canada with the help of
my sister and took less than a year, where's the problem.
Other countries have much harsher immigration laws and I don't hear anyone
saying that theirs are broken. Mexico has much harsher laws than us, but no
one is saying its broken. Go to Mexico illegally and your ass willl be in
jail for a long time as it would be in many countries. What is BROKEN?


One problem is that we don't seem to be able to do a good job of keeping
people from walking into our country. But that is tangled up with the
drug trade and I think we cannot ignore that connection.

The second problem is that, for many reasons, we don't seem to be able
to remove those who are here without documentation, many of whom have
had productive jobs for many years, and whose children who have been
born here have citizenship. So where we find a family, some of whom are
citizens, we have an unpleasant situation, where we have to break up a
family. This happens in America, where we say we value the family!

People who are here illegally often are careful to obey the laws, and
pay their taxes, because they don't want to come to the government's
attention. However, because companies are subject to government
inspection, many who are undocumented can safely work only in the under
the counter economy. Many citizens also work in that economy. If you
need some work on your house, you can go to places where workers gather,
and strike a deal to have some of them do your work. Payment is in
cash, and I'm confident no taxes are paid. If the undocumented worker
filed a return as self-employed, they would be bringing themselves to
the attention of the government, which is just what they want to avoid.
In my opinion, the homeowner who participates in such a scheme should
be liable himself for paying the taxes.

Years ago, I played soccer in an amateur league in California. I was
the only citizen on our team. We had an Englishman who had visited and
decided to stay; the rest were Mexicans who worked long hours, lived
frugally, and sent most of their money back home for their families.
One day we were practicing when Immigration raided us. The Mexicans
disappeared, and the Englishman and I just stood there. Immigration
didn't even question us, apparently because we were both white and
didn't run. Soon our practice resumed. I always admired the drive of
those Mexicans. They worked hard at jobs that no one else wanted.

Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of
immigrants. We should probably stay away from Ancestry.com lest we find
an undocumented immigrant in our family tree. The undocumented
immigrants that are here are almost always poor and poorly educated.
They don't have the knowledge or resources to hire a lawyer to get
immigration papers. And they face an immigration law that has often
based quotas on race or ethnicity, a history that gives us no cause for
pride.

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:24:32 PM UTC-6, ChairMan wrote:
I keep hearing that our immigration laws are broken, but I can't find anyone
to tell me what exactly is broken.

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/...psbf1e2f53.jpg

On 11/23/2014 5:13 PM, No name wrote:


The second problem is that, for many reasons, we don't seem to be able
to remove those who are here without documentation, many of whom have
had productive jobs for many years, and whose children who have been
born here have citizenship. So where we find a family, some of whom are
citizens, we have an unpleasant situation, where we have to break up a
family. This happens in America, where we say we value the family!

The second problem would not exist if the first problem was taken care
of many years ago. We allowed loose or no enforcement. Usually for the
benefits it provided.



Soon our practice resumed. I always admired the drive of
those Mexicans. They worked hard at jobs that no one else wanted.

Yes, we complain about the illegals but we put them to work at low
wages. They can stay as long as we benefit. Need your lawn done?
Tomatoes picked?

Jose is OK because the does a nice job on my lawn but tell his brother
to get the hell out of here.



Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of
immigrants.

Tell that to 5 million native Americans

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of
immigrants.

Tell that to 5 million native Americans

Heck even they immigrated Asia. FWIW, there is no evidence that any
homonid or even ape is native to the Americas.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 11/23/14, 7:29 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of
immigrants.

Tell that to 5 million native Americans

Heck even they immigrated Asia. FWIW, there is no evidence that any
homonid or even ape is native to the Americas.

An immigrant is a person who settles permanently in a foreign country.
If America was unsettled when Indians arrived, they weren't immigrants.

King James said much of America was his, so the people he sent to live
there wouldn't be immigrants. Who was going to argue with the guy who
wrote the Bible?

When the Pilgrims squatted in Plymouth, the Indians figured it was time
to enforce their immigration laws. Samoset spoke up for the wetbacks.
They'd taken over an abandoned town that happened to border on three
nations. They could be a buffer and a source of cheap manufactured
goods, like Harbor Freight. He got them amnesty.

In 1623, he sold the English land in Maine. In buying it, the English
legally acknowledged Indian ownership.

Local deacons bestowed full citizenship (freeman status) by a vote. A
welfare scammer probably wouldn't make it, but an Indian could. Why
should deacons excuse a neighbor from the obligations of citizenship
just because he wasn't born English?

King James had meant to establish a nation of sharecroppers. The
Indians put a stop to that buy giving and selling land to farmers.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:48:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

...snip....
Interesting background. Thanks.

More interesting to me is how well this distraction [immigration issue]
has successfully shelved ANYONE from looking at the ACA issue. Which to me
is far worse of a problem. Forced to buy a commercial product! With
comments during its passage like,pass it to find out what's in it. and now
disclosures of the true attitudes of the sources and the people elected to
'represent' us actually think about us! Obviously, not respecting a voter
base means a guilty conscience about 'doing' something to that voter base.

"RobertMacy" wrote in
message newsp.xpt6eo1y2cx0wh@ajm...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:48:34 -0700, Oren
wrote:

...snip....
Interesting background. Thanks.

More interesting to me is how well this
distraction [immigration issue] has
successfully shelved ANYONE from looking at the
ACA issue. Which to me is far worse of a
problem. Forced to buy a commercial product!
With comments during its passage like,pass it
to find out what's in it. and now disclosures
of the true attitudes of the sources and the
people elected to 'represent' us actually think
about us! Obviously, not respecting a voter
base means a guilty conscience about 'doing'
something to that voter base.

Forced to buy a commercial product!

Yes! Since when does the gov't have the power to
force every living American to send monthly
payments
for life to a private for profit company! Insane!
Ins. co's are the largest criminal activity in
this country.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/23/2014 5:13 PM, No name wrote:


The second problem is that, for many reasons, we don't seem to be able
to remove those who are here without documentation, many of whom have
had productive jobs for many years, and whose children who have been
born here have citizenship. So where we find a family, some of whom are
citizens, we have an unpleasant situation, where we have to break up a
family. This happens in America, where we say we value the family!

The second problem would not exist if the first problem was taken care
of many years ago. We allowed loose or no enforcement. Usually for the
benefits it provided.



Soon our practice resumed. I always admired the drive of
those Mexicans. They worked hard at jobs that no one else wanted.

Yes, we complain about the illegals but we put them to work at low
wages. They can stay as long as we benefit. Need your lawn done?
Tomatoes picked?

Jose is OK because the does a nice job on my lawn but tell his brother
to get the hell out of here.



Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of
immigrants.

Tell that to 5 million native Americans





Who, if the scientists are to be believed, immigrated from Asia. Yes,
they were the first wave of immigrants. We're lucky they didn't police
their borders better.

On 11/22/2014 4:45 PM, nestork wrote:
The real problem as I see it is that this is about the 4th or 5th time
that a US President has declared a general amnisty to illegal aliens.

Lots of LAW ABIDING immigrants wait their turn to come to the USA only
to be told that the US is declaring a general amnisty for illegal
immigrants, and therefore they won't be accepting any more legal
immigrants this year or next.

You can see how that encourages law abiding legal immigrants to go the
illegal route. They just get across the border on a visitor's permit
(or whatever it's called) and then don't go back. Or, they wait until
they're across the border to start a family. Each kid born in the USA
is an American citizen and an anchor that will keep them in the USA.

What the USA needs to do is send illegals back where they came from and
only allow LEGAL immigration to the USA. As it stands now, you guys are
sending entirely the wrong message by declaring a general amnisty every
couple of years to everyone that's in your country illegally. It
rewards those that get into your country illegally and infuriates those
who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn.





US immigration law written about 1895 allowed immigration through
certain areas. Those allowed in could not be ill, mentally retarded,
someone convicted of a crime or incapable of work. Immigration agents
would actually go on the ships and not even let those rejected
disembark. The shipping company was responsible for taking them back.

Book I was reading about this was written at the time in England and
author admired US system and did not like other European nations
dropping their trash on them and giving them low paid workers that took
citizens jobs. Today the UK is ****ed off that EC people from poorer
areas are coming in to get a better "dole".

On 11/24/14, 11:44 AM, Phil Kangas wrote:
"RobertMacy" wrote in
message newsp.xpt6eo1y2cx0wh@ajm...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:48:34 -0700, Oren
wrote:

...snip....
Interesting background. Thanks.

More interesting to me is how well this
distraction [immigration issue] has
successfully shelved ANYONE from looking at the
ACA issue. Which to me is far worse of a
problem. Forced to buy a commercial product!
With comments during its passage like,pass it
to find out what's in it. and now disclosures
of the true attitudes of the sources and the
people elected to 'represent' us actually think
about us! Obviously, not respecting a voter
base means a guilty conscience about 'doing'
something to that voter base.

Forced to buy a commercial product!

Yes! Since when does the gov't have the power to
force every living American to send monthly
payments
for life to a private for profit company! Insane!
Ins. co's are the largest criminal activity in
this country.

The police chief tells me that if I'm going to continue to appear in
public, I should buy a pair of pants from a private for profit company.
He says I can save money, though. If I don't buy pants, I'll have to
pay a penalty, but the county will give me pants. Just in time for
hunting season.

On 11/24/2014 4:25 PM, J Burns wrote:
The police chief tells me that if I'm going to continue to appear in
public, I should buy a pair of pants from a private for profit company.
He says I can save money, though. If I don't buy pants, I'll have to
pay a penalty, but the county will give me pants. Just in time for
hunting season.


Bet they give you hunter safety orange?

Hey, you can also make your own trousers,
or buy them from non profits, right? VOA,
Salvo?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 11/24/2014 8:45 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
The US is run by incompetents
and fools.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Ashton Crusher wrote in news:iln77apmd68g3cdenrs83gpcjkp5q59td9
@4ax.com:

And we should end
birthright citizenship, it's BS, no other first world country allows
some pregnant sow to come over the border, drop a kid, and give the
kid automatic citizenship. The fact that we do is just one more
driver of the illegal's to come here.

Ending birthright citizenship is not easy; it's part of the Constitution.

I think that's only part of the problem anyway. IMHO the main reason that we have so many
people coming here illegally is that unless you're a physician or an engineer, it's damn
near impossible to come here as a legal resident -- but it's comparatively easy to come
across the southern border illegally. I think this is backwards: we should make it damn near
impossible to cross that border illegally, and easy to come here as a legal resident -- we
should welcome anyone who has neither a criminal record nor a communicable disease
and has the ability to support himself and his family.

On 11/24/14, 5:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 11/24/2014 4:25 PM, J Burns wrote:
The police chief tells me that if I'm going to continue to appear in
public, I should buy a pair of pants from a private for profit company.
He says I can save money, though. If I don't buy pants, I'll have to
pay a penalty, but the county will give me pants. Just in time for
hunting season.


Bet they give you hunter safety orange?

Hey, you can also make your own trousers,
or buy them from non profits, right? VOA,
Salvo?

-

Yes,a hunter safety orange jumpsuit. I quit wearing pants because they
didn't give me the coverage I needed when I climbed a ladder.

In article ,


Ending birthright citizenship is not easy; it's part of the Constitution.
Kinda sorta. The extension of this part of the 14th Amendment is a
court action that took place years after enactment. There is a fair
amount of evidence from speeches and Congressional debate that as this
was originally envisioned, those coming from other countries were
specifically to be excluded. I did a rather large treatise on this
earlier in the thread if interested.


I think that's only part of the problem anyway. IMHO the main reason that we
have so many
people coming here illegally is that unless you're a physician or an
engineer, it's damn
near impossible to come here as a legal resident -- but it's comparatively
easy to come
across the southern border illegally. I think this is backwards: we should
make it damn near
impossible to cross that border illegally, and easy to come here as a legal
resident -- we
should welcome anyone who has neither a criminal record nor a communicable
disease
and has the ability to support himself and his family.

We do make it easier than many other places. You just have to wait
your place in line.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Monday, November 24, 2014 10:39:14 PM UTC-5, Doug Miller wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote in news:iln77apmd68g3cdenrs83gpcjkp5q59td9
@4ax.com:

And we should end
birthright citizenship, it's BS, no other first world country allows
some pregnant sow to come over the border, drop a kid, and give the
kid automatic citizenship. The fact that we do is just one more
driver of the illegal's to come here.

Ending birthright citizenship is not easy; it's part of the Constitution.

I think that's only part of the problem anyway. IMHO the main reason that we have so many
people coming here illegally is that unless you're a physician or an engineer, it's damn
near impossible to come here as a legal resident -- but it's comparatively easy to come
across the southern border illegally. I think this is backwards: we should make it damn near
impossible to cross that border illegally, and easy to come here as a legal resident -- we
should welcome anyone who has neither a criminal record nor a communicable disease
and has the ability to support himself and his family.

I agree with the part that we have it backwards, that legal immigration
is too restrictive, while illegal is not enforced much at all. But I'd
disagree that we should just accept anyone who wants to come here that
doesn't have a criminal record, a disease, etc. Some reasonable numbers
of allowed immigration, by country, which is how it's supposed to work,
seems more reasonable. And guest worker permits, for a time period of two
or three years is needed too. No reason we should allow unlimited numbers, from
everywhere, to come here. I don't know of any country that does that
today.

Instead of trying to come up with a complete solution to the problem,
one would think a very reasonable starting point would be to do two things
to start:

1 - Guest worker permits

2 - Tighten the border so that getting across illegally is difficult.

Step #1 would greatly assist in step #2, because the temporary workers
would no longer need to enter illegally.

Seems reasonable to me, but good luck getting in through the current
govt.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:qP2dneoGIednHOnJnZ2dnUU7-
:

We do make it easier than many other places. You just have to wait
your place in line.

A very, very long line.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:qP2dneoGIednHOnJnZ2dnUU7-
:

We do make it easier than many other places. You just have to wait
your place in line.

A very, very long line.

Which is a thing that could be addressed in reform.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein