View Poll Results: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    68 66.67%
  • No

    28 27.45%
  • I don't know

    3 2.94%
  • Other

    3 2.94%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    I agree that the illegal workers are not like the slaves. No human should ever again be subjected to slavery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I agree,... but I would like to play devils advocate for a moment.

    What about humans that we can collectively deny are humans or persons?

    Can we enslave them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    Go back to the abortion forum where you belong. Do you really think of everything as an abortion issue?
    1: Is that tone really necessary?
    2: Who said anything about abortion?
    3: I believe all things are connected in one way or another
    4: Is it wrong to expect people to be consistant in how they apply their beliefs and in what they claim?
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-17-10 at 04:44 PM.

  2. #42
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Agreed



    Are you saying the cop called them "hillbillies" or just placing bigotry on full display?

    And yes, Reagan did do that. And it was a massive mistake on his part. Why's that? Because he actually trusted that a "compromise" was going to happen when it never was going to and is the exact reason I will never, ever get behind any "path to citizenship" package unless its time delayed to start AFTER federally mandated enforcement of our laws is actually actively being done and with penalities if it does not continue.

    Amnesty was supposed to be granted. Along with this it was supposed to be illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants. Guess which of those two things was heavily enforced and which has been mostly ignored and not bothered with?

    Guess what, they want to be citizens of Mexico. Wonderful. Sign up for an actual temporary work visa and come on over. If not, you're illegal, you're a criminal, and your ass should be found and kicked out. If you're a repeat offender you should go into a bare necessities prison.



    Actually, ALL of them are criminals if they're in jail because they're here illegally. Why? Because they're here ILLEGALLY. Second, what you speak of is not an issue of immigration but an issue of our detention facilities, primarily that they're "nice places to stay" in any way shape or form to begin with.

    There's a really, really simple thing they can do if they don't want to be considered criminals or possibly detained.

    Don't illegally enter the country.

    Don't break the law.
    No, the cop didn't call them Hillbillies. I used that term and I do not find it to be derogatory. It was part of the title of a syndicated television series.


    There are some laws that are made to be broken. In this case we have a law that has been broken for a long time. You want to fix it to save the nation. I want to abolish it to save the people. You'll never see it my way. You don't have to. You'll see how it plays out anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    No, the cop didn't call them Hillbillies. I used that term and I do not find it to be derogatory. It was part of the title of a syndicated television series.
    So you'd have no problem with someone refering to mexicans as "wetbacks" because it was part of an official government plan then?

    There are some laws that are made to be broken. In this case we have a law that has been broken for a long time. You want to fix it to save the nation. I want to abolish it to save the people. You'll never see it my way. You don't have to. You'll see how it plays out anyway.
    Actually, there are no laws made to be broken. The purpose of passing a law is the intent that its NOT to be broken. Otherwise there's no reason to pass said law. Well, actually scratch that. You're right. It can be like that sometimes. Like the law that was supposed to be enforced in the "compromise" to get Amnesty but was just a flat out lie by the left and indeed was meant to be broken from the start.

    So, let me restate then, there's no honest law passed in good faith that's meant to be broken.

    You can thank your "laws meant to be broken" as being one of the reasons there's a large segment of this population that will never get on board with almost any kind of amnesty, path to citizenship, or any other crap like it.

    Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. I personally don't plan on repeating it.

  4. #44
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I would contend there's still some significant differences between then and now that are the root of some of the issues Tuck.

    For one, while America is still technically a "young" country, it has experienced a number of generations throughout its time thus far (about 12 since the founding). With each passing generation in the country more and more of a societal culture and identity has developed and the more the country has essentially found "itself". In the earliest years of the country we were a frontier land, filled largely by people who were fresh into the country or born within a small few generations. The culture and identity of the country was still forming, much like its borders and cities in and of themselves were still in a formative period.

    The time period you're talking about is three to four generations into the countries existance, compared to 12 currently. Stirring up an already cloudy and chaotic situation is different than doing it to one that is far more established. To give a sports analogy, if they had gone into the Panther's or Jaguars 4 years into their existance and tried a major change in their power structure, management structure, etc it'd likely work reasonably well with people being reasonably open to it as the team was new and fresh to a point and experimentation to find an identity wouldn't be out of the question. However going into say, the Steelers organization, and tryin the same thing would likely be met with far harsher reactions because at this point its been long established and working reasonably well without a great NEED for a massive change of culture or upheaval.
    The error in thinking here is that you are ignoring the fact that the colonies had existed for far longer than many current states have when the wave of immigration I'm talking about occurred. Your analogy is flawed because you are looking at the entry into the NFL as the barometer, not the existence of the team. If the Jaguars had existed for longer than the steelers had, but were only in th eleague for four of those years, the process would be far different, and perhaps even more difficult than altering th esteelers, because perhaps the steelers were once run according to the philosophies that are being implemented in the restructure.

    To explain, let's take Boston again as our example.

    Established in 1630. This wave of immigration started in 1847. This means there were about 217 years between the establishment of Boston and the wave of immigrants I'm talking about. 217 years is a long time and Boston's identity had been entrenched for quite some time when the Micks showed up.

    However, let's look at Phoenix and Arizona for a second.

    In 1847 (the year that was the start of the major Irish influx into Boston), Arizona was a part of Mexico! It wasn't until the following year, 1848, that the majority (but not yet all) of Arizona became owned by the US. It wasn't until 1853 that the rest of it became owned by the US. It wasn't until 1912 that Arizona became a US state and officially a part of the US.

    Phoenix itself wasn't founded until 1861. This gives 149 years between Phoenix's inception and today's "immigration crisis".

    Which one was more "entrenched" at the time of their wave of immigrants? The city that had existed basically unchanged for 217 years or the one that has existed for 149?

    Even more importantly, the Irish had no real connection to Boston prior to their migration there, while Mexicans have been a part of Arizona for longer than Arizona has existed.


    I think the attempt to compare the past to the present as if they're equal situations is to ignore the plethora of changes societally, culturally, and logistically to where we were at that time.
    I wouldn't even say they are equal. I'd say that it was more of an upheaval back in the day than it is today.

    You're correct its not simply about the numbers. Its the lack of a common language. Its the over crowding of already crowded areas. Its the reduction in service and seeming quality of life that its seemed to have imparted in many places. Its the strain its putting on our various government systems. Its the wanton violation of the law while there are others willingly and patiently waiting their turn. Its the increasing encroachment of a foreign culture into not localized locations but country wide.
    None of these things are any differnet than they were in the past. German, Irish, Chinese, Italian, whatever immigrants went ALL over the country. The railroads weren't built by natural-born Americans.

    Just as we see today, Immigrants simply congregated in the largest numbers in the most likely places: Large cities. The immigrants today are doing the same exact thing. Why else would Illinois and New York have two of the highest Mexican immigrant populations in the country? California and Texas make sense, due to the borders they have with Mexico, but the only reason that Illinois and New York make the top five list is because of Chicago and NYC.

    Californian and Texas are there because they've got lots of big cities and they are on the border.

    When I compare the past to now, it's ebcaus enothing has changed. The same lame arguments are presented as they were back then about the immigrants being a threat to the culture. They're violent, they steal, they are criminals, yada yada, yada.

    We are seeing an exact duplication of what happened in the mid 19th to early 20th centuries right now. Nothing has really changed.

    The only thing that has changed is that people today have revised the history to create a whole slew of mythical imaginings about how wonderful immigration was viewed in teh past and how the immigrants back tehn magically gave up their languages and cultures and became happy americans without anything changing.

    It's all a fairy tale. That never happened.

    Hell, if anything, it's better today. There's indoor plumbing and other things that keep cholera levels and outbreaks down and such.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #45
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So you'd have no problem with someone refering to mexicans as "wetbacks" because it was part of an official government plan then?
    Uh, no. You got me there. I scored infraction points once for using "rednecks". I guess I shouldn't use "hillbillies' either.

    Hey, I learned something today. Thanks!

    Actually, there are no laws made to be broken. The purpose of passing a law is the intent that its NOT to be broken. Otherwise there's no reason to pass said law. Well, actually scratch that. You're right. It can be like that sometimes. Like the law that was supposed to be enforced in the "compromise" to get Amnesty but was just a flat out lie by the left and indeed was meant to be broken from the start.

    So, let me restate then, there's no honest law passed in good faith that's meant to be broken.

    You can thank your "laws meant to be broken" as being one of the reasons there's a large segment of this population that will never get on board with almost any kind of amnesty, path to citizenship, or any other crap like it.

    Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. I personally don't plan on repeating it.
    It's going to repeat anyway. Amnesty II, the sequel isn't that far off (I'm guessing). And yes, it will be the complete failure too.

    I don't like borders. If they were real, they'd hold American companies inside of America.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Level wise, Boston gained 37,000 immigrants in 1847. There population before this was about 115,000.

    That's about a 33% increase in total population in just one year. This made about 25% of Boston's population immigrants.

    The impact of this was tremendous.

    Then look at New York. in 1847, they had a population pf about 350,000 natives, to which over 100,000 immigrants form Ireland and Germany were added in one year.

    During the famine, the Irish alone accounted for 650,000 immigrants to the US, which had a population of about 17 million in 1840 and 23 million in 1850.

    This represents about 4% of the total 1840 population of the US. That compares to the total estimated illegal population in the US today of about 11 million (with a population of about 300 million total)

    That's not including the influx of Germans who represented 32% of the total immigration between 1847 and 1854.

    This isn't talking about the number of immigrants who are currently here from years gone by. It's actually the numbers of immigrants who landed here over that time span.

    The rates today are, at worst, comparable to the mid 19th century, at best they were worse back then than they are today.
    I'm not concerned about percentages of population. The areas with heavy illegal immigrant populations are also areas with water/drought problems, overcrowding, troubled schools, and overpopulation issues. Our current population levels in this country, as driven by immigration, are non-sustainable by any measure.

  7. #47
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I'm not concerned about percentages of population. The areas with heavy illegal immigrant populations are also areas with water/drought problems, overcrowding, troubled schools, and overpopulation issues. Our current population levels in this country, as driven by immigration, are non-sustainable by any measure.
    That's no any different than it's ever been.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's no any different than it's ever been.
    Really. Los Angles was in a dispute with Arizona, Utah, Oregon, and Washington over water rights back in the early 1900s?

  9. #49
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should citizenship be denied to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Really. Los Angles was in a dispute with Arizona, Utah, Oregon, and Washington over water rights back in the early 1900s?
    Of course I didn't say that bit of idiocy, catz.

    I said that "The areas with heavy illegal immigrant populations" have always been "areas with water/drought problems, overcrowding, troubled schools, and overpopulation issues". LA ain't the only place that's ever had a drought. And it was worse for people before, when they often didn't have water pumped into their houses, but instead had to go to public wells and such which were dry.

    Troubled schools relates to education, and immigrant neighborhoods often always had eduication issues.

    Overcrowding, overpopulation? A much, much, much bigger issue back in the days before antibiotics and indoor plumbing. All one needs to do is take a look at the Cholera epidemics of the 1800's to verify this.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •