Proposed Immigration Reform

Only people who can support themselves and their family with their own money for twenty years can become citizens. It is time we quit being suckers for third world benefit seekers and their apologists/vote buyers.

That's going to be tough to prove. Didn't I read where Obama will extend Social Security retirement benefits to those who are qualified and applying for "pathway to citizenship"? How will that be proven?

Or will it be like the $1.2 billion dollar fund that was set aside for black farmers who were discriminated against by the Federal govt a many years ago...only to have more "black farmers" apply for the money than ever existed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...nt-qa/3181695/

That's going to be tough to prove. Didn't I read where Obama will extend Social Security retirement benefits to those who are qualified and applying for "pathway to citizenship"? How will that be proven?

Or will it be like the $1.2 billion dollar fund that was set aside for black farmers who were discriminated against by the Federal govt a many years ago...only to have more "black farmers" apply for the money than ever existed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...nt-qa/3181695/ Originally Posted by gnadfly

I suppose if it weren't for "discrimination" every black farmer would have been a millionaire by now....

The Democrats are pushing memes with the help of the media to implement their agenda. The other one is "abortion in the case of rape or incest" to basically hold the pro-abortion fort up. My guess is the true number of pregnancies from "rape and incest" pales to the number abortions because "she's just not into him anymore."

Not to hijack your thread again, this is just another 'tough to prove' example

Repeal Teddy Kennedy's 1965 law and stop the anchor baby program. Go back further and require that anyone coming in be able to support themselves, have a sponsor, and sign a statement that they will not take any federal or state charity (personal and religious is okay). And to modernize things, become an official English speaking country which backs current immigration law.

Repeal Teddy Kennedy's 1965 law and stop the anchor baby program. Go back further and require that anyone coming in be able to support themselves, have a sponsor, and sign a statement that they will not take any federal or state charity (personal and religious is okay). And to modernize things, become an official English speaking country which backs current immigration law. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yeah, none of that is going to happen.

Yeah, none of that is going to happen. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Why not? Isn't this a representative republic? If people like you....yeah, what am I talking about here. Baby Killer from his place in the White House basement only wants to see the United States on it's knees just like his master. I guess it is up to the rest of us to save the country....without Baby Killer's input.

Yeah, none of that is going to happen. Originally Posted by WombRaider

If it could, would you support it?

Why not? Isn't this a representative republic? If people like you....yeah, what am I talking about here. Baby Killer from his place in the White House basement only wants to see the United States on it's knees just like his master. I guess it is up to the rest of us to save the country....without Baby Killer's input. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You would need to change the 14th amendment, cocktard. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 had nothing to do with anchor babies. And it wasn't even proposed or sponsored by Kennedy. Why not take it a step further, you communist pig, and make it illegal for any pregnant woman to travel to the US. You scream fascist, but I'm betting that would be ok with you.

Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment:

"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."

If it could, would you support it? Originally Posted by DSK

No. Why should someone who works and pays taxes be cut off from receiving any benefits?

No. Why should someone who works and pays taxes be cut off from receiving any benefits? Originally Posted by WombRaider

They need to be a citizen. Does Mexico grant illegal aliens from Guatamala or the rest of South America benefits?

You would need to change the 14th amendment, cocktard. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 had nothing to do with anchor babies. And it wasn't even proposed or sponsored by Kennedy. Why not take it a step further, you communist pig, and make it illegal for any pregnant woman to travel to the US. You scream fascist, but I'm betting that would be ok with you.

Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment:

"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." Originally Posted by WombRaider

Quote the rest of the amendment and condemn Obama as a liar and traitor. Besides, that amendment was originally for free slaves and you know it.

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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Only Congress can make immigration law, understand? Only Congress, not Obama, not the Justice department, only Congress. That feeling you're having right now. That is your ass being handed to you.

They need to be a citizen. Does Mexico grant illegal aliens from Guatamala or the rest of South America benefits? Originally Posted by DSK

Yes, dipshit, I know this. It was a response to JD Jizzy Nuts post:

Repeal Teddy Kennedy's 1965 law and stop the anchor baby program. Go back further and require that anyone coming in be able to support themselves, have a sponsor, and sign a statement that they will not take any federal or state charity (personal and religious is okay). And to modernize things, become an official English speaking country which backs current immigration law.

If someone is here legally and having taxes removed from their pay, why should they sign something that says they can't receive benefits?

Quote the rest of the amendment and condemn Obama as a liar and traitor. Besides, that amendment was originally for free slaves and you know it. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It doesn't matter what the amendment was for, it contains the citizenship clause. And why would I condemn Obama as a liar and traitor?

Quote the rest of the amendment and condemn Obama as a liar and traitor. Besides, that amendment was originally for free slaves and you know it.

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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Only Congress can make immigration law, understand? Only Congress, not Obama, not the Justice department, only Congress. That feeling you're having right now. That is your ass being handed to you.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

woomby likes it when his second "money maker " gets tore up and handed to him !