GOP takes on the anchor baby problem

[Apathy]

Lessee...where to start..........

1)- Americans deprived of a job because of black market labor
2)- The victims of illegal alien crime - 25% of california's vast prison system is illegal aliens
3)- The US citizens who die on the way to the more distant ER in LA county, because of the shutdowns of ERs bankrupted by non-paying illegals
4)- The people who are in car wrecks caused by uninsured illegals, who just skip back over the mexican border
5)- The state of california going nearly bankrupt and raising taxes to pay for the largess given to the 5 million illegal aliens in that state
6)- The US citizens who are murdered by illegals who go back to mexico and are home free because mexico won't turn them over
7)- The vast looting of the welfare state by illegals, paid for by taxes of US citizens
8)- The US citizens who wait four hours sick in an ER lobby, because they have to get in line behind young healthy mexican women there for the prenatal check for their anchor baby
9)- The property owners who are taxed to pay for the education of illegal aliens
10)- The out of state students who have to subsidize the illegal alien students who are given instate tuition in the california state university system
11)- The US rancher gunned down by illegal aliens on his land
12)- The other reancher sued by leftwing lawyers on behalf of illegal aliens who he detained on his land to turn over to the INS
13)- The people murdered all the time in Phoenix by illegal alien drug smugglers

ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC ETC
ETC ETC ETC ETC


GET A GODDAM CLUE. 1)YOU DON'T SEE THIS IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE LIB MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT IT. COME HERE (THE SOUTHWEST) AND LOOK

1) We let them stay here no black market if we let them work over the table.

2) So hispanics are of lower quality, they cant read, and are criminals.

3) So hispanics are of lower quality, they cant read, are criminals, and leech off the system. (Which already we already established as the one condition they need to abide by no government funds.)

4) If they are here and we allow them to be here they can buy insurance like everyone else.

5) We already established that they will get no government funds rick.

6) Murder is the crime there Rick and you could just as easily be murdered by a non immigrant. Lets go through the list again shall we... Hispanics are of lower quality, they cant read, they are criminals, they leech of the system and are blood thirsty killers.

7) Again we estabished this as a prerequisite for them staying here no government funds.

8) Same as 3, 5, & 7...

9) Same as 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9

10) If they are residents then they qualify... No one is force to go to those colleges from out of state they gan go to their own state to go to college for the same subsidized rate.

11) Yes this is indicitive of all immigrants the victim in this case is not one of immigration but one of murder.

12) So he forcably held people on his ranch and he is the victim... I think kidnapping trumps tresspassing.

13) Because of the unconstitutional war on drugs... Not indicitive of all immigrants infact that is a extremely small minority. They were victims of murder not immigration. Yadda yadda yadda.... Any other frivolous claims you need ripped to shreds?

14) I lived in South Florida before I lived in PA so dont act like I havent seen it. You dont know me Rick you dont know what I have experienced stop acting like you do.

 

[Rick]

1) We let them stay here no black market if we let them work over the table.

The way for them to "stay here" is follow the law and get in line with the LAW-ABIDING immigrants.

2) So hispanics are of lower quality, they cant read, and are criminals.

If anyone else is reading this thread, they will understand that as your continued cowardly evasion, even though it has been exposed three times.

3) So hispanics are of lower quality, they cant read, are criminals, and leech off the system.

The illegal aliens - but you just continue your mental masturbation by distorting what I said.

4) If they are here and we allow them to be here they can buy insurance like everyone else.

Like saying "if we legalize bank robbing, there would be no more crime in stealing money from banks".

6) Murder is the crime there Rick and you could just as easily be murdered by a non immigrant.

Uh........if you eliminate some of the murderers, there will be less murder. Some invaders feel quite free to murder, because mexico won't extradite them. Second time - get it yet??

10) If they are residents then they qualify... No one is force to go to those colleges from out of state they gan go to their own state to go to college for the same subsidized rate.

It's the height of Orwellian silliness to say that a person ILLEGALLY here is a "resident", as if that's what the people of California meant when they established the term. In fact, by a big majority, california overturned the providing of ANY university education to any invader - naturally, a leftwing judge just overturned it.

11) Yes this is indicitive of all immigrants the victim in this case is not one of immigration but one of murder.

If they weren't here, how could they commit murder?

12) So he forcably held people on his ranch and he is the victim... I think kidnapping trumps tresspassing.

So if someone invades your home, you won't hold them at gunpoint till the police arrive? You're sounding sillier with every word.

13) Because of the unconstitutional war on drugs... Not indicitive of all immigrants infact that is a extremely small minority.

Hokayyyyyyyy - a "small" amount of killing, etc, making Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the US, is er uh .......OK.

They were victims of murder not immigration.

They were victims of murder by illegal aliens. Would the murder have happened if there were no illegal alien? Nooooooooooo

14) I lived in South Florida before I lived in PA so dont act like I havent seen it. You dont know me Rick you dont know what I have experienced stop acting like you do.

You ain't got any f_cking idea. Florida is NOTHING like the southwest. It has middle class cubans who have assimilated perfectly and cam here LEGALLY. The southwestern US is becoming essentially a new province of mexico, and people like you are dumb, deaf, and blind about it, and you never hear a word about the actual conditions because you have your head stuck in the sh_t bag of the lib media.

 

[BigRob]

Sure we could also enforce jaywalking, prostitution, drug laws and other victimless crimes... But is it a law worth enforcing? Maybe you right maybe we do need to change the law. But isnt that always implied when we are talking about changing how we do things?

Perhaps my issue is that I don't like to think about things in some theoretical realm, and I tend to look at things through the lens what can actually be done about it... in the case of changing the 14th Amendment, there simply are not the votes.

 

[BigRob]

SO WHAT? If tomorrow the USSC ruled that sh_t was ice cream, would you get a scoop on your cone?

No, I would not..but that would not mean it was not still the law.

You appear to be the dream citizen of every statist who ever lived - robotically repeating "duh....it's the LAW.....so duh.......we must obey..........".

There are mechanisms in place to change laws, use them if you feel you have been wronged.

As for your analogy, does this mean you are a "statists dream citizen" for "robotically repeating 'duh...it's the LAW' whenever an issue arises with constitutional interpretations?

Also, you offer no evidence that the votes don't exist in congress, and nobody EVER should "get used to" injustice.

As for "evidence":

To propose an amendment:.
1)Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment
2) Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

Republicans do not have the votes (certainly not in the Senate), nor the power in the state legislators to get this done.

So, the other alternative is to pass legislation, which would be vetoed, and would then still lack the 2/3 majority in both chambers to reverse that veto.

There just are not the votes, or the political will at this time... at most you might get a hearing on the issue, but that is meaningless.

 

[Rick]

Perhaps my issue is that I don't like to think about things in some theoretical realm, and I tend to look at things through the lens what can actually be done about it... in the case of changing the 14th Amendment, there simply are not the votes.

STIL waiting for proof from you for this assertion.

 

[Rick]

No, I would not..but that would not mean it was not still the law.

A simplistic statement from you. Arguably, a 100 year old unconstitutional ruling from the USSC is not the law.

There are mechanisms in place to change laws, use them if you feel you have been wronged.

Too much of the "mechanisms" are the leftwing activist judiciary created by clinton and obozo. They are faux mechanisms.

As for "evidence":

To propose an amendment:.
1)Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment
2) Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

Republicans do not have the votes (certainly not in the Senate), nor the power in the state legislators to get this done.

Your whole premise is flawed - overturning bad USSC rulings doesn't require a constituional amendment.

So, the other alternative is to pass legislation, which would be vetoed, and would then still lack the 2/3 majority in both chambers to reverse that veto.

The point of that is to get congressional supporters of the invasion on the record - so they can be unseated in 2012.

 

[Apathy]

1)The way for them to "stay here" is follow the law and get in line with the LAW-ABIDING immigrants.



2)If anyone else is reading this thread, they will understand that as your continued cowardly evasion, even though it has been exposed three times.



3)The illegal aliens - but you just continue your mental masturbation by distorting what I said.



4)Like saying "if we legalize bank robbing, there would be no more crime in stealing money from banks".



5)Uh........if you eliminate some of the murderers, there will be less murder. Some invaders feel quite free to murder, because mexico won't extradite them. Second time - get it yet??





6)It's the height of Orwellian silliness to say that a person ILLEGALLY here is a "resident", as if that's what the people of California meant when they established the term. In fact, by a big majority, california overturned the providing of ANY university education to any invader - naturally, a leftwing judge just overturned it.



7)If they weren't here, how could they commit murder?



8)So if someone invades your home, you won't hold them at gunpoint till the police arrive? You're sounding sillier with every word.



9)Hokayyyyyyyy - a "small" amount of killing, etc, making Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the US, is er uh .......OK.



They were victims of murder by illegal aliens. Would the murder have happened if there were no illegal alien? Nooooooooooo



You ain't got any f_cking idea. Florida is NOTHING like the southwest. It has middle class cubans who have assimilated perfectly and cam here LEGALLY. The southwestern US is becoming essentially a new province of mexico, and people like you are dumb, deaf, and blind about it, and you never hear a word about the actual conditions because you have your head stuck in the sh_t bag of the lib media.

1) But they are of lesser quality remember? You dont want them kind.

2) I think they will realize your true feelings. The immigrants are a little too dark for your tastes.

3) Coming from the man who ignored the second point to that was key to understanding the response.

4) No its not.. Quit beating up strawmen.

5) So all mexican must go back to mexico because the actions of a few. You arent being logical.

6) Eric Blair was a communist rick the irony is killing me. If we allowed them to stay here they wouldnt be illegal would they?

7) Your assuming they will murder.

8) Id pump the shotgun and give them three seconds to get the fvck out... But thats hardly the situation in that case.

9) Do you owe the Coyotes or the Cartel any money?

10)They were victims of ILLEGAL murder.

11) If you define legal as in coming on a raft landing on the beach and setting in root sure they came here legally. I had to knock on my nieghbors door when I was getting my carpet installed so he could translate for me when the company I called sent me a group of cubans that spoke very little english.

 

[Rick]

1) But they are of lesser quality remember? You dont want them kind.

You refuse to debate. You're a coward. Now, you're just repeating sh_t that I've already refuted. Sh-t is all you have.

 

[Apathy]

You refuse to debate. You're a coward. Now, you're just repeating sh_t that I've already refuted. Sh-t is all you have.

Running away I see...

 

[Rick]

Running away I see...

You ran away with your first post. All you want is a pissing contest, and you're no good at that either.

All you got is sh_t, apissy.

 

[BigRob]

A simplistic statement from you. Arguably, a 100 year old unconstitutional ruling from the USSC is not the law.

Your opinion on the subject does not make the law unconstitutional....what would make it not the law is if it were to be overturned or changed... which it has not been.

Too much of the "mechanisms" are the leftwing activist judiciary created by clinton and obozo. They are faux mechanisms.

The mechanisms I spoke of are spelled out by the Constitution...neither President Clinton or President Obama had anything to do with that.

Your whole premise is flawed - overturning bad USSC rulings doesn't require a constituional amendment.

Even if you take the legislative route (which I also mentioned), you have to come up with 67 senators.. the votes are simply not there to enact anything major.

The point of that is to get congressional supporters of the invasion on the record - so they can be unseated in 2012.

Neither party has done much by way of immigration reform.

 

[Rick]

Your opinion on the subject does not make the law unconstitutional....what would make it not the law is if it were to be overturned or changed... which it has not been.

Again, your obedient puppet of the state mentality.

The mechanisms I spoke of are spelled out by the Constitution...neither President Clinton or President Obama had anything to do with that.

As already pointed out, a bad decision need only be reversed, not a constitutional amendment. Wanna hear it a third time?

Neither party has done much by way of immigration reform.

Finally, you get something right. That's because after Reagan the GOP was reclaimed by the RINO establishment - something conservatives are working on changing.

 

[BigRob]

Again, your obedient puppet of the state mentality.

So any law you disagree with is not really a law in your opinion? Let me know how that works out for you.

As already pointed out, a bad decision need only be reversed, not a constitutional amendment. Wanna hear it a third time?

And as I have now pointed out twice, to override a Presidential veto (if you take a legislative approach) still requires the vote of 2/3 of each Chamber of Congress...or to put it simply, 67 senators.. the same as would be required for a Constitutional Amendment. Either way, the votes do not exist.

 

[Rick]

So any law you disagree with is not really a law in your opinion? Let me know how that works out for you.

There isn't any "law" saying anchor babies are citizens - just bad judicial precedent. If anyone stops treating them like citizens, they won't be breaking any law, because there is none. Rather the leftwing would sue, which is good because the likely result is that bad precedent would be overturned.

And as I have now pointed out twice, to override a Presidential veto (if you take a legislative approach) still requires the vote of 2/3 of each Chamber of Congress...or to put it simply, 67 senators.. the same as would be required for a Constitutional Amendment. Either way, the votes do not exist.

Simplistic. If congress passes the law, then obozo has to ask himself if he wants to oppose poll after poll opposing the illegal alien invasion AND congress. As a crafty politician from the Chicago democratic machine, and with the 2012 election considered, he probably wouldn't isolate himself in that way: obozo against the country.

 

[Apathy]

You ran away with your first post. All you want is a pissing contest, and you're no good at that either.

All you got is sh_t, apissy.

Rob is this kind of behaviour acceptable? This name calling has been going on for pages.