On 10/31/18 9:38 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/31/2018 09:35 PM, Bob F wrote:
"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldnt be a United States
citizen€”that he had €œno rights which the white man was bound to
respect.€� Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in Americas first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th Amendment."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

Children of Honduran citizens, for example, owe allegiance to Honduras.

and catholics owe allegiance to the Pope

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:33:22 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 11/1/18 6:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:34:09 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 10/31/18 2:23 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:34:18 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only
country with
when actually there are 30.

Excluding Canada that leaves 29 ********s where a lot of
the citizens
appear to want to be someplace else.

Actually it leaves 28, the US is one of the 30, too. Look at
the countries that have already reversed that idiotic idea.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...tizenship.html

Another question I haven't seen anyone in the media address is what
is the position of these 30 other countries on births to illegal
aliens? Just because they recognize birthright citizenship for
people in the country legally, doesn't necessarily mean they are
OK with it for illegals.

in the United States the 14th amendment makes it clear that if you are
born here, you are a citizen...not withstanding pinocchio advocating treason


No, it does not make it clear, because the 14th amendment says "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof" and we have never had a SC ruling on what
that means. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms,
but you libs have figured out how to put limits on that with laws that
were found to be constitutional. So, obviously it can be done with immigration
too.



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.


you can regulate immigration, but you can't regulate birthright


Thanks for posting exactly what I said. It says "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof". Now let's look at what the discussion was about at the time,
what was said, what was argued when the amendment was passed and what
the intent was. Is an illegal
alien subject to the jurisdiction of the govt? Not in SF, not in CA, not
in NYC, all of which harbor illegals and keep them from being subjected
to the jurisdiction of the federal govt. The 14th was intended to fix the
citizenship issue for children born to freed slaves, not to welcome in
people who are already citizens of another country. And that is what most
of those babies are, by virtue of the fact that the parents are citizens
of a foreign country, the child is generally a citizen of that country
too. Whenever the issue of
citizenship has come up, that has been one primary issue, that citizenship
would not be extended to people who have an allegiance to another country.
When you're an illegal alien from Honduras, your allegiance is still to
Honduras and you're giving the finger to the USA, clearly indicating that
you have no intention of being subject to our jurisdiction, by being here
ILLEGALLY and hiding. This anchor baby BS must end. There is no rational
reason for it period.

On 11/1/2018 3:42 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
weird comparison...blacks were forcibly removed from their homeland

They were sold by their own at Harbor Freight prices.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:01:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:00:30 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:31:26 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:16:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:06:07 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only country with
birthright citizenship when actually there are 30.

About changit it he said:
"They're saying I can do it with an executive order" When he says
"They're saying" it means one person that he told to say it said it.

That about sums it up for Trump. Now tell us where you stand on this issue,
as a resident diehard Democrat. That is the more important part, the
actual issue. Are you in favor of allowing illegal aliens to come here,
have babies, often at taxpayer's expense, and the baby is automatically
a US citizen? We call them anchor babies.

It's out of my hands. I doubt that the Constitution will be amended
because of this, I doubt if it will pass even one house of Congress, and
if there's a real movement to do it, one guy like me won't make much
difference one way or the other.

Typical Democrat.

Typical Republican complaint.


No, every Republican/Conservative in this thread has stated where they

What was typical of Republicans is blaming my being in the other party.

are on the issue of illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. We know
where we stand and we can back it up. And THAT is the real issue here,

You don't get to decide the real issue. I created the issue when I
started a thread. Everything else is thread drift. It's equivalent to
dicta.

not the minor issue that Trump got something factually wrong again.

You don't get to decide what is a minor issue. You're starting to be
narcissitic like the dunghead if you think what you consider major and
minor determines what actually is.

That he's factually wrong about how many countries allow birthright
citizenship isn't a long term issue, it will be forgotten in a week.
The illegal alien birthright problem is a real issue, one that's out
of control and getting worse. It has a direct effect on the country
today, tomorrow and twenty years from now. Wise up.

Grow up.

You run and hide and won't state where you stand.
And I suspect it's because you agree that illegal alien birthright
citizenship should be ended, but you won't admit it because it's also
Trump's position.

Your suspicions are silly. You don't know any more about me than I've
told you. Making up things about someone else is another thing the
dunghead does.

Democrats just can't admit that Trump is right on
anything.

You're assuming I agree with you, and that's foolish.




Start some BS

It's not BS.

The Trump aspect of it pretty much is BS compared to the real issue,

You don't get to decide what the real issue is. That's what I meant by
talk, talk, talk. You say the same thing over and over again in
slightly different words as if saying it more than once will make it
true. Wait, that's number 3 trait of Stumpie.

which is that Trump is on the right side of the ISSUE. Where are you
on the ISSUE?





about what Trump is doing with immigration law,

And that's not what the post I STARTED with was about.

I know, you want to play the typical Democrat lib game of hit and run.

You sound like a nasty piece of crap here. You're just repeating your
stupid nonsense in different words. I'd be ashamed to behave like you
are.

How did it work out for you?



The two points I
made had nothing to do with whether they should be citizens or not. It
was about the dunghead lying about how many countries had birthright
citizenship (he said 1. It's 30) and about what it means when he says
"They're saying". If the thread topic drifts away from what I was
discussing, you have no business expecting me to have a position on some
new topic and you have no business saying I started that topic.

then cop out when asked where you stand on it. If you know that Trump
is a dung head, then you should know where you stand on the issue you're
bitching about.

That doesn't follow at all. He was a dunghead long before this came up,
and I had decided where I stood, as a bystander, long before Stumpie
appeared on the scene. His dungheadedness doesn't require me to change
my position.

How come you're logical until someone doesn't say what you want?

If you don't then maybe you should just shut up.

Make me. Even though it's out of my hands and I don't have a position
yes or no, I can still tell when Donnie is a dunghead.



You're a dung head too because you won't fess up and give us your position

You're an idiot. I gave you my position. It's the same thing I'd tell
a friend and it's what I think. I don't have to reach a position on
every issue. When you draw conclusions from your idiotic speculation
and state them as fact you're no more than a liar.

on the immigration issue. You brought the subject here, you created the
thread. Man up or stop bitching.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

Good question.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

Good question.

By which I mean that "should" is a good question.

The situation will not be changed because it's in the
Constitution/Amendments.

So since it's not going to change, I'm not going to worry about the
answer to "Should it?"

On 11/1/18 3:51 PM, Bob wrote:
On 11/1/2018 3:42 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
weird comparison...blacks were forcibly removed from their homeland

They were sold by their own at Harbor Freight prices.

not so, they were worth far more

On 11/1/18 2:33 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:33:22 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 11/1/18 6:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:34:09 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 10/31/18 2:23 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:34:18 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only
country with
when actually there are 30.

Excluding Canada that leaves 29 ********s where a lot of
the citizens
appear to want to be someplace else.

Actually it leaves 28, the US is one of the 30, too. Look at
the countries that have already reversed that idiotic idea.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...tizenship.html

Another question I haven't seen anyone in the media address is what
is the position of these 30 other countries on births to illegal
aliens? Just because they recognize birthright citizenship for
people in the country legally, doesn't necessarily mean they are
OK with it for illegals.

in the United States the 14th amendment makes it clear that if you are
born here, you are a citizen...not withstanding pinocchio advocating treason


No, it does not make it clear, because the 14th amendment says "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof" and we have never had a SC ruling on what
that means. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms,
but you libs have figured out how to put limits on that with laws that
were found to be constitutional. So, obviously it can be done with immigration
too.



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.


you can regulate immigration, but you can't regulate birthright


Thanks for posting exactly what I said. It says "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof". Now let's look at what the discussion was about at the time,
what was said, what was argued when the amendment was passed and what
the intent was. Is an illegal
alien subject to the jurisdiction of the govt? Not in SF, not in CA, not
in NYC, all of which harbor illegals and keep them from being subjected
to the jurisdiction of the federal govt. The 14th was intended to fix the
citizenship issue for children born to freed slaves, not to welcome in
people who are already citizens of another country. And that is what most
of those babies are, by virtue of the fact that the parents are citizens
of a foreign country, the child is generally a citizen of that country
too. Whenever the issue of
citizenship has come up, that has been one primary issue, that citizenship
would not be extended to people who have an allegiance to another country.
When you're an illegal alien from Honduras, your allegiance is still to
Honduras and you're giving the finger to the USA, clearly indicating that
you have no intention of being subject to our jurisdiction, by being here
ILLEGALLY and hiding. This anchor baby BS must end. There is no rational
reason for it period.

catholics have their allegiance to the Pope, let's get rid of all Catholics

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.Â* It's the best on the planet.

On 02/11/2018 11:27, citizen taxpayer wrote:
On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare
and healthcare.Â* It's the best on the planet.

Did Trump tell you that?

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health...4509618&page=1
--
Bod

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:25:37 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

Good question.

Typical clueless Democrat. Why it it Micky that you have a big mouth,
big opinions about Trump and the GOP, but you won't tell us where you
stand on this simple issue? Nor will you ever criticize, in any way,
any Democrat. Putting the two together, leads to the conclusion that
you won't state where you stand because you probably agree with Trump.

Should birthright citizenship be ended? Yes or no?

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

Good question.

By which I mean that "should" is a good question.

The situation will not be changed because it's in the
Constitution/Amendments.

So since it's not going to change, I'm not going to worry about the
answer to "Should it?"

Typical lefty Democrat. Big mouth, knows what Trump and the GOP does
wrong, bitches about Republicans, but can't give a simple, honest answer
to a current major political issue. Trump isn't going to change, so why
the hell do you worry about and bitch about him all the time, like this
new thread? You're a good example of why it's impossible to get anything
done, anything passed in America today. There is no substance, no willingness
to analyze the FACTS, take a position. It's just emotion and BS. In that
regard, you're worse than Trump. At least he will take positions.

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 8:22:22 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:


You don't get to decide the real issue. I created the issue when I
started a thread. Everything else is thread drift. It's equivalent to
dicta.

Wow, imagine that, thread drift. And as thread drift goes, going from
what Trump said about the birthright issue, to the birthright issue
itself isn't much drift. It's only drift because you won't man-up and
tell us your opinion.






not the minor issue that Trump got something factually wrong again.

You don't get to decide what is a minor issue. You're starting to be
narcissitic like the dunghead if you think what you consider major and
minor determines what actually is.

It is a minor issue, that Trump got it wrong, that 30 other countries
follow birthright citizenship. It's already been forgotten, it's over.
The birthright issue itself won't be forgotten, it remains a controversial
issue. That is FACT, no matter your attempts to deny the obvious.





That he's factually wrong about how many countries allow birthright
citizenship isn't a long term issue, it will be forgotten in a week.
The illegal alien birthright problem is a real issue, one that's out
of control and getting worse. It has a direct effect on the country
today, tomorrow and twenty years from now. Wise up.

Grow up.

I'm the adult, I answered the question of where I stand on a controversial
issue in the news. That's what adults do. Snowflakes stir up some BS,
then run and hide.





You run and hide and won't state where you stand.
And I suspect it's because you agree that illegal alien birthright
citizenship should be ended, but you won't admit it because it's also
Trump's position.

Your suspicions are silly. You don't know any more about me than I've
told you. Making up things about someone else is another thing the
dunghead does.

I didn't make up anything at all. I simply stated that you have such a
big mouth about other things, especially what Trump and the GOP is doing
that's wrong, that a reasonable possibility is that the reason you won't
give us an answer on birthright citizenship, could be that you agree with
Trump.





Democrats just can't admit that Trump is right on
anything.

You're assuming I agree with you, and that's foolish.

Not just you Micky, DEMOCRATS in general won't admit that anything Trump
does is right. You can prove me wrong right now, give us some things
Trump has done on issues that are right and give us some examples of where
DEMOCRATS are or have been wrong.










Start some BS

It's not BS.

The Trump aspect of it pretty much is BS compared to the real issue,

You don't get to decide what the real issue is.

You're repeating yourself now.



That's what I meant by
talk, talk, talk. You say the same thing over and over again in
slightly different words as if saying it more than once will make it
true. Wait, that's number 3 trait of Stumpie.

which is that Trump is on the right side of the ISSUE. Where are you
on the ISSUE?





about what Trump is doing with immigration law,

And that's not what the post I STARTED with was about.

I know, you want to play the typical Democrat lib game of hit and run.

You sound like a nasty piece of crap here. You're just repeating your
stupid nonsense in different words. I'd be ashamed to behave like you
are.

I'd be ashamed to be here bitching about Trump, but refusing to give an
answer to where you stand on birthright. I'd be ashamed of having to come
here and ask how someone can screw you with a personal check too.






How did it work out for you?



The two points I
made had nothing to do with whether they should be citizens or not. It
was about the dunghead lying about how many countries had birthright
citizenship (he said 1. It's 30) and about what it means when he says
"They're saying". If the thread topic drifts away from what I was
discussing, you have no business expecting me to have a position on some
new topic and you have no business saying I started that topic.

then cop out when asked where you stand on it. If you know that Trump
is a dung head, then you should know where you stand on the issue you're
bitching about.

That doesn't follow at all. He was a dunghead long before this came up,
and I had decided where I stood, as a bystander, long before Stumpie
appeared on the scene. His dungheadedness doesn't require me to change
my position.

How come you're logical until someone doesn't say what you want?

If you don't then maybe you should just shut up.

Make me. Even though it's out of my hands and I don't have a position
yes or no, I can still tell when Donnie is a dunghead.



You're a dung head too because you won't fess up and give us your position

You're an idiot.

When you're the guy who posts here on all your life's problems,
that the rest of us navigate with few problems,
everything from buying a car to figuring out how a guy on Craigslist
giving you a personal check can screw you, maybe it's time to look
in the mirror?

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:27:59 -0400, citizen taxpayer
wrote:

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.* It's the best on the planet.
Don't know about in the devided states of america, but here in Canada
most recent immigrants work harder and are more productive than many
of the 3rd and 4th (or more) generation immigrants. Let's face it you
are ALL immigrants - including about half (at least) of the "native"
americans.

Most, especially from central america come up here and work their
tails off to provide a better life for their kids - who go on to study
and graduate, and become proud productive citizens.

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:27:59 -0400, citizen taxpayer
wrote:

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.Â* It's the best on the planet.
Don't know about in the devided states of america, but here in Canada
most recent immigrants work harder and are more productive than many
of the 3rd and 4th (or more) generation immigrants. Let's face it you
are ALL immigrants - including about half (at least) of the "native"
americans.

Most, especially from central america come up here and work their
tails off to provide a better life for their kids - who go on to study
and graduate, and become proud productive citizens.

That's pretty much what it's like here. Hard-working people just like
all previous generations of immigrants.

OTOH, perhaps the lazy ones stay in the Southwest, and we just never
see them up here.

Cindy Hamilton

On 11/2/18 4:27 AM, citizen taxpayer wrote:
On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare
and healthcare. It's the best on the planet.



Dont Blame Immigrants for Bloated Welfare State

By Alex Nowrasteh and Robert Orr
This article appeared on the Washington Examiner on May 15, 2018.
The Trump administration is in the process of writing new regulations to
guarantee that certain immigrants wont consume too many welfare or
entitlement benefits. The welfare state is certainly a problem, but its
a home-grown one, not an imported one. Welfares benefits are too large
and too many people receive them. But the Trump administration should
not blame this problem on immigrants.

In fact, immigrants use fewer welfare and entitlement benefits in than
native-born Americans.

These were the results of a new study we produced for the Cato
Institute. We examined data from 2016 on programs for the poor, such as
Medicaid and food stamps, and also the entitlement programs of Social
Security and Medicare. The latter two are the largest portion of the
welfare state and twice as large as all welfare programs for the poor
combined. We found that immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and
entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans. Immigrants
are less likely to use the individual programs in most cases and, when
they do, the benefits they receive tend to be smaller.

In fact, immigrants use fewer welfare and entitlement benefits in than
native-born Americans.
Social Security retirement benefits provide a good example. Based on the
data, adult immigrants are 47 percent less likely to receive Social
Security benefits than native-born American adults. Furthermore, the
average amount they receive in benefits is about $1,427 below that of
natives in 2016. The net effect is that immigrants individually consumed
48 percent fewer Social Security retirement benefits than natives.

Supplemental Security Income provides another example. Lower immigrant
use rates and benefits mean that the average adult immigrant consumes
about 22 percent less in SSI benefits than the average native-born
American adult.

Welfare and entitlement programs are generally intended to aid the poor
and support the elderly, but only some Americans and immigrants fall
into those categories. In another section of my study, we compare poor
and elderly immigrants who meet the poverty and age requirements for
those programs with native-born Americans who are also eligible. In this
section, immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits than native-born
Americans.

One reason why immigrants use fewer benefits is because they are often
not eligible for them. Legal immigrants cannot get welfare for their
first five years of residency, with few exceptions, mostly at the state
level. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare except for rare
circumstances like emergency Medicaid.

Immigrants are drawn to Americas labor markets, not to welfare
benefits. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended on the Southwest
border, a good proxy measurement for the number who want to come here,
is down by 82 percent in 2017 compared to 2000. During that time,
Congress has increased the number of welfare programs available for new
immigrants.

If they were coming for welfare, there would be more illegal immigrants
entering the country than ever. But there arent. Murder, the chaotic
drug war in Central America, and a recovering economy here, combined
with a faltering one there, is the main driver of asylum seekers and
some illegal immigrants coming from that part of the world.

The fact that immigrants are in fact less likely to receive welfare
benefits should dampen the fears of conservatives and libertarians who
would support more legal immigration if it werent for welfare and
entitlement programs.

Still, Congress needs to address the high cost of welfare and
entitlement programs. The best option would be to severely cut the size
and accessibility to the welfare and entitlement state for everybody
here €” immigrants and natives. The benefits are unaffordable and push
millions of people out of the labor market.

Congress should pass a simple law that makes all people ineligible to
receive welfare and entitlement programs until they become U.S.
citizens. Building expensive walls around the country, cutting legal
immigration, or putting more faith in government technology to stop
illegal immigration are fools errands. Reducing immigrant access to
welfare and cutting the size of benefits are, by contrast, achievable
and popular policies.

The good news is that even without a higher wall around the welfare
state, immigrants are a welfare bargain compared to native-born Americans.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:27:59 -0400, citizen taxpayer
wrote:

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.*

That's nonsense. The kind of lie Stumpie spreads.

It's the best on the planet.

That's not true either. The 50's didn't last forever.

citizen taxpayer wrote
micky wrote
trader_4 wrote

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

Good question.

Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Plenty still do.

Today, they don't come here to work,

Bull****.

most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.

Bull**** most do.

It's the best on the planet.

Bull**** either of them are with those that dont work.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2018 11:27, citizen taxpayer wrote:
On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare
and healthcare. It's the best on the planet.

Did Trump tell you that?

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health...4509618&page=1

And plenty of countrys have much more generous welfare too.

On 03/11/2018 05:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2018 11:27, citizen taxpayer wrote:
On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright
citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free
welfare and healthcare.Â* It's the best on the planet.

Did Trump tell you that?

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health...4509618&page=1

And plenty of countrys have much more generous welfare too.

Yup and the UK is one of them.

--
Bod

On 11/1/2018 7:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:05:13 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:34:18 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only
country with
when actually there are 30.

Excluding Canada that leaves 29 ********s where a lot of
the citizens
appear to want to be someplace else.

Actually it leaves 28, the US is one of the 30, too. Look at
the countries that have already reversed that idiotic idea.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...tizenship.html

Another question I haven't seen anyone in the media address is what
is the position of these 30 other countries on births to illegal
aliens? Just because they recognize birthright citizenship for
people in the country legally, doesn't necessarily mean they are
OK with it for illegals.

It would be nice if someone from the media did this, but someone on one
side or the other could also do it.

Why don't you do it? Oh, I know, you won't say which side you're on.
Coward.




The anti-change-law folks have
presented their case, that 30 nations have birthright, so it seems fair
for the pro-change would present a rebuttal, if it turns out that a
substantial share of the 30 do make an exception for illegals. BUT, that
would require them to admit that there are more countries than just the
US and it would make Stumpie look either stupid or a liar, so that's a
problem for them.

WTF? If only 30 follow birthright, then ~160 don't! And why does it matter
what some other countries do? You have close to that number that follow
Sharia law. Should we do that too?






And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

I woudln't be at all surprised if the current caravan was started by a
few of Trump's agents, just to get his voters worked up.


It's possible, but it's far more likely it was supported and funded by
the radical libs, aka the Democrats. It's the Democrats that you support
that want open borders and to let that caravan right on in. Still waiting
for your answers:

Where do you stand on the birthright issue?

Where do you stand on sanctuary cities and states?

Do you agree with the Democrats that say ICE should be abolished?

Should we stop that caravan, or just let them right on in?


THOSE are the real issues. But of course you won't weigh in, because you
obviously either agree with your Democratic Party on all that or being the
partisan, you won't say anything negative about them. It's always a
Republican.


Prove to us that prominent Democrats have EVER claimed they want open
borders. This is just another stupid Repub lie that they repeat forever
even though there is no truth to it.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 2 Nov 2018 23:03:26 -0700, Bob F
wrote:



THOSE are the real issues. But of course you won't weigh in, because you
obviously either agree with your Democratic Party on all that or being the
partisan, you won't say anything negative about them. It's always a
Republican.


Prove to us that prominent Democrats have EVER claimed they want open
borders. This is just another stupid Repub lie that they repeat forever
even though there is no truth to it.

You're right about that. There has always been lying in politics, and
general living, but it has permeated the Republicans.

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:28:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Did Trump tell you that?

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health...4509618&page=1

And plenty of countrys have much more generous welfare too.

And especially in the UK as we can all witness with unemployable Peter
Hucker who BRAGGED about having gotten more money from the state than he
ever paid in!

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:27:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Plenty still do.

Says the Ozzie troll!

Today, they don't come here to work,

Bull****.

Troll****!

most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.

Bull**** most do.

More of your troll****!

It's the best on the planet.

Bull**** either of them are with those that don¢t work.

Yet more of your troll ****!

You STINK of senile Ozzie troll, senile geezer!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2018 05:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2018 11:27, citizen taxpayer wrote:
On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship
or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free
welfare and healthcare. It's the best on the planet.

Did Trump tell you that?

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health...4509618&page=1

And plenty of countrys have much more generous welfare too.

Yup and the UK is one of them.

In fact its hard to think of any modern first world country that doesnt.
And a
much more accessible and free health care system for those who dont work
too.

On 10/31/18 10:35 PM, Bob F wrote:

Well the Republicans made it happen.

"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldnt be a United States
citizen€”that he had €œno rights which the white man was bound to
respect.€� Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in Americas first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th Amendment."

http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/

This is what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say:

"As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said €œforeigners€� and
€œaliens€� born on U.S. soil are, €œof course,€� not citizens:

€œThis 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.€�

From
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:37:09 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/31/18 10:35 PM, Bob F wrote:

Well the Republicans made it happen.

"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldnt be a United States
citizen€”that he had €œno rights which the white man was bound to
respect.€� Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in Americas first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th Amendment.."

http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/

This is what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say:

"As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said €œforeigners€� and
€œaliens€� born on U.S. soil are, €œof course,€� not citizens:

Sen. Howard appears to have been excluding families of ambassadors
or foreign ministers. "[E]very other class of persons" is included (in
birthright citizenship).

The commas before and after "aliens" indicate that he is providing
an alternative word for "foreigners". Parentheses were less commonly
used then. Today we might write:

"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..., but will include every other class of
persons."

It will likely be decided by judges wrangling over the significance
of those commas.

Cindy Hamilton

€œThis 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.€�

From
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:53:46 AM UTC-5, BurfordTJustice wrote:
You are so screwy..14 amend. was about blacks being citizens..

I thought you were a literalist. The 14th Amendment doesn't SAY anything
about race.

Cindy Hamilton

Not ****ing illegels from SA.

So take some illegals into your home to house, feed and support their
medical needs
then come and preach.




wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:37:09 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/31/18 10:35 PM, Bob F wrote:

Well the Republicans made it happen.

"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldn't be a United States
citizen-that he had "no rights which the white man was bound to
respect." Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in America's first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th
Amendment."

http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/

This is what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say:

"As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said "foreigners" and
"aliens" born on U.S. soil are, "of course," not citizens:

Sen. Howard appears to have been excluding families of ambassadors
or foreign ministers. "[E]very other class of persons" is included (in
birthright citizenship).

The commas before and after "aliens" indicate that he is providing
an alternative word for "foreigners". Parentheses were less commonly
used then. Today we might write:

"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..., but will include every other class of
persons."

It will likely be decided by judges wrangling over the significance
of those commas.

Cindy Hamilton

"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."

From
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:43:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:37:09 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/31/18 10:35 PM, Bob F wrote:

Well the Republicans made it happen.

"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldnt be a United States
citizen€”that he had €œno rights which the white man was bound to
respect.€� Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in Americas first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th Amendment."

http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/

This is what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say:

"As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said €œforeigners€� and
€œaliens€� born on U.S. soil are, €œof course,€� not citizens:

Sen. Howard appears to have been excluding families of ambassadors
or foreign ministers. "[E]very other class of persons" is included (in
birthright citizenship).

The commas before and after "aliens" indicate that he is providing
an alternative word for "foreigners". Parentheses were less commonly
used then. Today we might write:

"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..., but will include every other class of
persons."

It will likely be decided by judges wrangling over the significance
of those commas.

Cindy Hamilton


You would think that somewhere in the discussion and debate there would
be specific, clear discussion about babies born to people who are
citizens of other countries, who are here on a temporary basis, other
than diplomatic staff. Is that all they could think of? What about
someone vacationing, visiting relatives, for example? Do we have actual
discussion of that? And then illegal aliens are a category way beyond that..
Sounds like politicians back then had some things in common with lawmakers
today.






€œThis 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.€�

From
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 2:06:03 AM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 11/1/2018 7:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:05:13 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:34:18 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only
country with
when actually there are 30.

Excluding Canada that leaves 29 ********s where a lot of
the citizens
appear to want to be someplace else.

Actually it leaves 28, the US is one of the 30, too. Look at
the countries that have already reversed that idiotic idea.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...tizenship.html

Another question I haven't seen anyone in the media address is what
is the position of these 30 other countries on births to illegal
aliens? Just because they recognize birthright citizenship for
people in the country legally, doesn't necessarily mean they are
OK with it for illegals.

It would be nice if someone from the media did this, but someone on one
side or the other could also do it.

Why don't you do it? Oh, I know, you won't say which side you're on.
Coward.




The anti-change-law folks have
presented their case, that 30 nations have birthright, so it seems fair
for the pro-change would present a rebuttal, if it turns out that a
substantial share of the 30 do make an exception for illegals. BUT, that
would require them to admit that there are more countries than just the
US and it would make Stumpie look either stupid or a liar, so that's a
problem for them.

WTF? If only 30 follow birthright, then ~160 don't! And why does it matter
what some other countries do? You have close to that number that follow
Sharia law. Should we do that too?






And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

I woudln't be at all surprised if the current caravan was started by a
few of Trump's agents, just to get his voters worked up.


It's possible, but it's far more likely it was supported and funded by
the radical libs, aka the Democrats. It's the Democrats that you support
that want open borders and to let that caravan right on in. Still waiting
for your answers:

Where do you stand on the birthright issue?

Where do you stand on sanctuary cities and states?

Do you agree with the Democrats that say ICE should be abolished?

Should we stop that caravan, or just let them right on in?


THOSE are the real issues. But of course you won't weigh in, because you
obviously either agree with your Democratic Party on all that or being the
partisan, you won't say anything negative about them. It's always a
Republican.


Prove to us that prominent Democrats have EVER claimed they want open
borders. This is just another stupid Repub lie that they repeat forever
even though there is no truth to it.

ROFL

What proof do you want? Must they actually say it? Their actions and
words prove it:

Sanctuary Cities, eg San Francisco, where per Democrat's policy, a
criminal with a long felony record, who had already been deported
FOUR times, was given sanctuary, turned loose, released, after they
dropped the latest drug charges. Despite ICE having told them they
wanted him handed over, SF released him. Within weeks he shot and
killed Kate Steinle. They are all over America now, almost every one
run by Democrats, eg Boston, Baltimore, Newark, SF

Sanctuary States, eg California, Vermont, Oregon, Colorado The GOP would
end all those, the Democrats created and support them.

Constant bitching about the rights of illegal aliens, over those of American
citizens. Where are the Democrats that are saying that caravan should not
be allowed in?

Calling for the abolishment of ICE

Refusing to fund the wall

Painting as racist anyone who wants immigration law ENFORCED

In favor of amnesty for the current 11 mil+ illegal aliens already here,
to be followed by welcoming in the next caravan and starting that process
all over.


It's all there, clear as can be. It's just that you dishonest Democrats
won't stand up and accept the open borders title.

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:27:26 AM UTC-5, BurfordTJustice wrote:
There you go thinking left again...


Stick to lymeboi and his fanboi who he shares with you..

Peas in a pod..oh the ****witery.

Deflection duly noted. It really isn't a very effective rhetorical gambit.

Cindy Hamilton


wrote in message
...
: On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:53:46 AM UTC-5, BurfordTJustice wrote:
: You are so screwy..14 amend. was about blacks being citizens..
:
: I thought you were a literalist. The 14th Amendment doesn't SAY anything
: about race.
:
: Cindy Hamilton
:
: Not ****ing illegels from SA.
:
: So take some illegals into your home to house, feed and support their
: medical needs
: then come and preach.
:
:
:
:
: wrote in message
: ...
: On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 8:37:09 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
: On 10/31/18 10:35 PM, Bob F wrote:
:
: Well the Republicans made it happen.
:
: "In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
: declared that a black man generally couldn't be a United States
: citizen-that he had "no rights which the white man was bound to
: respect." Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858
and
: 1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates
took
: on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
: generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
: enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in America's first
: major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months
later,
: Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th
: Amendment."
:
: http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/
:
: This is what the author of the 14th Amendment had to say:
:
: "As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said "foreigners" and
: "aliens" born on U.S. soil are, "of course," not citizens:
:
: Sen. Howard appears to have been excluding families of ambassadors
: or foreign ministers. "[E]very other class of persons" is included (in
: birthright citizenship).
:
: The commas before and after "aliens" indicate that he is providing
: an alternative word for "foreigners". Parentheses were less commonly
: used then. Today we might write:
:
: "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..., but will include every other class of
: persons."
:
: It will likely be decided by judges wrangling over the significance
: of those commas.
:
: Cindy Hamilton
:
: "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."
:
: From
:
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens
:

posted for all of us...



On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 2:18:39 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:

j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor

Not everybody has a mayor. I have a township supervisor. I'd
have to look up their name. Why would it be important to know
that?

Cindy Hamilton

Just by asking that question shows your ignorance and in this case
stupidity.

--
Tekkie

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:27:59 -0400, citizen taxpayer
wrote:

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.* It's the best on the planet.
Don't know about in the devided states of america, but here in Canada
most recent immigrants work harder and are more productive than many
of the 3rd and 4th (or more) generation immigrants. Let's face it you
are ALL immigrants - including about half (at least) of the "native"
americans.

Most, especially from central america come up here and work their
tails off to provide a better life for their kids - who go on to study
and graduate, and become proud productive citizens.

Yes, we are all immigrants but we must distinguish between legal and illegal
immigration. Coming in on Ellis Island or through a POE is legal. Crossing
the Rio Grande to avoid detection or sneaking through a fence is illegal. Do
you go through an open front door or knock first?

--
Tekkie

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:37:47 PM UTC-5, Tekkie® wrote:
Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:27:59 -0400, citizen taxpayer
wrote:

On 11/1/2018 8:25 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?
Good question.


Years ago, immigrants came to the US to work and prosper.

Today, they don't come here to work, most come here for the free welfare and healthcare.Â* It's the best on the planet.
Don't know about in the devided states of america, but here in Canada
most recent immigrants work harder and are more productive than many
of the 3rd and 4th (or more) generation immigrants. Let's face it you
are ALL immigrants - including about half (at least) of the "native"
americans.

Most, especially from central america come up here and work their
tails off to provide a better life for their kids - who go on to study
and graduate, and become proud productive citizens.

Yes, we are all immigrants but we must distinguish between legal and illegal
immigration. Coming in on Ellis Island or through a POE is legal. Crossing
the Rio Grande to avoid detection or sneaking through a fence is illegal. Do
you go through an open front door or knock first?

--
Tekkie

And what really drives a lot of us nuts, is how the illegals are now in
our faces, openly defying the US, our citizens, our laws and acting like
we owe them something. To follow your example, it's like someone busting
in through your backdoor, standing in your living room, and saying screw
you, I'm here, I'm squatting, I have my rights to squat.