Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship

Discussion in 'United States' started by PrincipleInvestment, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seriously? OK... Since you don't know, I'll explain..

    * Every child in a school costs money..
    * Every child in a public school costs public (taxpayer's) money..
    * The more children in school, the more teachers, rooms, buildings, books, food, buses, administrators, etc... (In case you didn't hear, lots of Democrats have complained that there are too many children per classroom.)
    * The more children in school, the more schools are required, and they have to be maintained, powered, staffed, cleaned, repaired, etc..
    * Every ESL child requires extra costs over English speaking children, including additional teachers, classrooms, books and facilities because they don't speak English.
    * Since ESL children in many states (or possibly all states) remain in English speaking classrooms through most of the day, extra attention has to be paid to them, robbing English speaking children of much of their time.

    I hope this explanation gives you the knowledge to go forth in life knowing that ESL children aren't cost free.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  2. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong on several counts.

    Dealing with current immigrants is vital to the future of illegal immigration. People come into America illegally because they expect Democrats and RINOs to allow them to stay and not be punished for breaking the laws including their illegal entry, IRS income disclosure infractions, and identity fraud. IOW - Paying aliens to break American laws has a big impact on the number of aliens that break our laws.

    Of course the wall is effective... (That's why Democrats oppose using it to protect most Americans) Have you seen the San Diego wall? Who wants that wall the most? Southern California residents, that are hugely Democrats.
    [​IMG]

    I don't know the specifics, but I think the San Diego border has been enforced by fencing and/or walls for several decades.

    Have you heard any California Democrats calling for it's removal?
     
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not ALL of them. This is the FARCE of DACCA! (Deferred Action for CERTAIN Childhood Arrivals.)

    How do we know that exactly?
     
  4. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Government contracts are the worst. No doubt. But fortunately, the yahoos that are doing the California train to Nowhere won't be in charge.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't, probably be more.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well pleased to know there are no illegal immigrants in San Diego. Amazed at how easily you proved that the Trump fence will work he says while laughing uproariously.
     
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what are the democrats proposed "effective methods?"
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do we know that it will be any more than 25 billion? Also, nothing about the farce of DACCA? (Deferred Action for CERTAIN Childhood Arrivals.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  9. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't you believe in assimilation? How are they suppose to assimilate without English?
     
  10. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you now understand it costs money to teach ESL children, right?

    For legal immigrants the cost can be budgeted into immigration policy.
     
  11. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry what farce about Daca other thsn Trump saying he would protect them before he decided to use them as hostigas.

    And the way you can figure out it would cost way more than estimated is the entire history of government/ military purcurement. Heck Trump hasn't even specified gold plated faucets yet which you know will be extra.
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same ones the Republicans have proposed minus the wall.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you not read what I said? The fact that not ALL childhood arrivals are eligible for DACCA. THAT is the farce of DACCA. (Deferred Action for CERTAIN Childhood Arrivals.)

    What do you mean?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  14. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Individuals who meet the following criteria can apply for deferred action for childhood arrivals: are under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; came to the U.S. while under the age of 16; have continuously resided in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 to the present.
    DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) - Immigration ...
    Immigration Equality › our-legal-

    https://www.immigrationequality.org...d-action-for-childhood-arrivals/#.XAdHN9FOmhA

    And why exactly is the fact that not all childhood arrivals are eligable for DACCA a farce. Serms like a rayer intelligently targeted program to me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I just thought that you might have been saying that they cost money but non-ESL children do not.

    What difference would that make?
     
  16. MAGA

    MAGA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,268
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The difference is that America would be controlling the costs instead of illegal aliens controlling the cost.
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it not currently budgeted into the education policy of each state government?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I love how you used my amended acronym "DACCA!" Although perhaps you didn't intend to! Anyway, how it is "intelligently targeted" to include people who who arrived in 2007 when they were 15, and were 20 when DACCA was introduced in 2012, but REJECT people who arrived before 1981 as babies and were 31 or older when DACCA was introduced in 2012? Does this make any sense at all? These pre-1981 arrivals are now 37 or older! Many will be married with kids, with a house in the burbs and a dog! Should they be subject to deportation while people who have still lived the majority of their lives (15 years) outside of the US are protected from deportation? I am stunned that I haven't read ANYTHING in the media about this. I had to come up with this analysis myself. You never thought about it before? Shouldn't it be the more years spent in the US as a child the MORE protection you get?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  19. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes of course but that has nothing to do with DACA. Personally I think anyone who has been here for an extended pariod of time, contributed to society and has broken no significant laws should be allowed to stay provided they are willing to follow a path to citizenship. And if you haven't read anything about yhis in the media you should change your media sources.

    To many on this forum mix up people who are already here with those who will attempt to gain illegal entry in the future.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, how does DACA's nonsensical eligibility criteria have nothing to do with DACA?

    Well if you believe this, why are you okay with the nonsensical DACA eligibility criteria, which EXCLUDES people who have been there "for an extended period of time, contributed to society and has broken no significant laws?" Also, why would they NOT want to follow a path to citizenship?
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stop being silly. DACA is just one of many issues around legal and illegal immigrants.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what is your point?
     
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My pointnis your faulting DACA legislation because it doesn't deal with all illegal immigrants is disingenuous.
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, because it doesn't deal with the more SIGNIFICANT illegal immigrants! There are people who arrived in 2007 when they were 15, and were 20 when DACCA was introduced in 2012, and they are eligible for DACCA, and there are people who arrived before 1981 as babies and were 31 or older when DACCA was introduced in 2012. Now who is more important to protect from deportation?
    These pre-1981 arrivals are now 37 or older! Many will be married with kids, with a house in the burbs and a dog! Should they be subject to deportation while people who have still lived the majority of their lives (15 years) outside of the US are protected from deportation?

    What about someone who arrived as a 12 year old in 2012 and is now 18? Do they fit your above criteria? (assuming that they have never broken any laws.)
     
  25. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    24,789
    Likes Received:
    4,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they would. But that doesn't invalide DACA. Just means more needs to be done. You seem to be govuse on discrediting DACA because it doesn't deal with all illegal immigrants. That is fine as your opinion. We just don't agree.

    The entire issue of current illegals in the US needs to be delt with but apparently it won't be. And I doubt that even if the Dems would fund the total wall the rest of the issues would be solved. Illegals have become a Republican rallying cry and they seem to be in no hurry to eliminate that way of motivating their most xenophobic supporters.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018

Share This Page