Up to 400K Children Born To Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Annually, One In 10 Births

And anything on our high Abortion rate keeping down the birth rate?

 

We need to look at the reasons why companies outsource jobs. Unions are one of them, minimum wage is another, Obamacare is still another...the list is long.

 

If a Mexican woman crosses the border and gives birth on the north bank of the Rio Grande, the child should be a Mexican citizen, not a U.S. citizen. This is common sense.

 

Ya but they ARE here....your plan? Just shoot them all? Throw them in the ocean? Send them back to horrible poverty and even death?



ALL those INNOCENT INCONVENIENT BAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIES ?????

All those precious LIVES (that aren't white so screw this pro-life crap, RIGHT!?? ??

 

Ah yes another person who thinks all illegal immigrants are Mexicans.... Laughable!

 

I didn't say they were all Mexicans.

Ah yes, another person who thinks the only immigrants of color are Mexican....laughable!

 

Send them back to where they came from. I didn't get them pregnant, they're not my kids, that makes them not my responsibility. When did America become responsible for the world or individuals who create their own problems?

 

Never stated that. I made my comment because of your easily debunked talking point that being against illegal immigration is "racist"

 

Ya, hate to see the United States with a bunch of IMMIGRANTS in it


All those INCONVENIENT kids...... you don't want to have to handle anything that was INCONVENIENT , do you Steve?

Send 'em back afterall those children, those baaaaaaaabies, created their own problems....those innocent LIVES.....and you want to send them back to poverty and maybe even death and ...and, well, that is so Anti-LIFE.....

 

cheap foreign labor is why they outsource, simple.... if we take away all tax cuts from companies that outsource, they may change their ways (and make it public who does this so we can shop at other companies)

we have to make it harder for companies to outsource, it's a national security threat for some information companies like telco, medical and security companies

make it illegal to allow foreign companies access to American customer account information.. be a start

you could pay Americans $5 an hour and you still can not beat $10 a day foreign labor.....

.

 

What about the problems they cause here? What about the rapes, robberies, murders, drug dealing, gangs, drunk driving, and overall lowering the quality of life for American citizens? Nah, none of that counts for anything.

You know, a few hundred years ago when we got sick and tired of all the BS we rose up and took control of our nation. Troubled and corrupt countries will never have their population stand up if they're allowed to run to America, so the problem will never end. Don't you think it's in the best long term interests of these people to clean up and fix the hell holes they're running from?

 

Out sourcing is a huge problem considering it's always the low skilled labor jobs you'd expect illegals to gravitate towards that get outsourced first.

Democrat government is hostile to the entire slate of manufacturing interests from raw material harvesting, to labor, to transportation, to a thousand different regulations, to international trade.

The medical device taxes and regulations that came out of the ACA alone ...holy hell ...you wouldn't believe how crippling they are for American businesses, foreign manufacturers won't have to adhere to virtually all of it.

But no matter how you look at it whe the illegals show up they've got no job. Long gone is the era of the "work hard for a better life". We three have generations of illegals and children of illegals now proudly proclaiming their entitlement to be here and cash in on the freebies. We need to cut the influx of new arrivals off and stabilize or we're going to drown.

 

OK. Now I just need to know which is your concern.
- The OP was hair on fire worried about overpopulation. Blames it on illegal immigrants and Obama
when pointed out that the US does not have an overpopulation problem, but rather a negative growth rate.
- Now it's underpopulation that is the problem. and you blame it, I am assuming, on democrats and Obama?

Before I answer anymore questions, just want to know, do you think the US birthrate is too high, too low, or just right right now?
cheers

 

Uh, we were discussing all the CHILDREN immigrants will have , Of course they wouldn't have so many if BC and abortion were readily available to them ... eh, Steve????


Oh those precious FETUSES...SAVVVVE them!!!!....But sheesh, once these kids are BORN and actually walking around they SUDDENLY become REALLY INCONVENIENT AFTER THEY ARE BORN.... That doesn't sound very pro-life.........just some MORE hypocritical "thinking" from a "pro-lifer"

 

His parents were here prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act. They came here under the Burlingame Treaty (1868 ). WKA only settled children born to those parents here domiciled and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign govt.. You need to take a history lesson. WKA was born in 1873, per WKA. The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed and implemented in 1882.

 

I have, extensively, what part do you believe grants services to illegals?

So now you completely refute your own claim and agree with exactly what I stated, Plyler only grants illegal children the ability to go to school, nothing more. It does not grant any services to illegals.

- - - Updated - - -

 

We have an over population problem and a birth rate problem. Next set of questions.

 

I'm pro choice. Not pro abortion, pro choice. And not for the reasons you might think.

 

You are right on the money in pointing out how corporations seem to have no allegiance to any nation nor any moral compass when it gets in the way of maximizing profit.

If you want to see how this applies to the thread topic just consider the sheer volume of illegals in this nation giving birth to "anchor babies" and how government and Chamber of Commerce type businessmen collude in this elaborate dance trying to give the impression they oppose unchecked illegal immigration when, in fact, they both
are eager to, respectively, increase their voter base and gain access to cheap uncomplaining workers.

I assumed it was implicit in my comments that I speak only for those that share my views. However since every poll ever taken in this nation on illegal immigration demonstrates a solid majority has always opposed it I think it's clear I speak for many people.

Breaking our laws and then tapping into the safety net meant for citizens is not only rude but it engenders deep resentment.

Our kindnesses and laws get turned against us when a human tsunami of Mexico's most expendable people swarm over our nation.
I believe in decency that flows in both directions and I believe in a government that stands up for it's own people for a change.

I'm not sure how you can agree 100% on my views of our American oligarchy and claim before that I don't understand what a constitutional republic is.

The constitutional republic is what we like to believe we have....the oligarchy is what we really live under.
I'm afraid we have the government we deserve.

 

India is our future and the liberal regressives don't care.

 

What you call yourself and try to wriggle out of does not change what you are.

But your post has nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted which was correct in every way ::

Uh, we were discussing all the CHILDREN immigrants will have , Of course they wouldn't have so many if BC and abortion were readily available to them ... eh, Steve????


Oh those precious FETUSES...SAVVVVE them!!!!....But sheesh, once these kids are BORN and actually walking around they SUDDENLY become REALLY INCONVENIENT AFTER THEY ARE BORN.... That doesn't sound very pro-life.........just some MORE hypocritical "thinking" from a "pro-lifer" """""""""""



And I am not going to play your silly meaningless word games....and I don't think of your reasons at all......

 

It's not the Wong Kim Ark case that granted birthright citizenship to children born to illegals but the 14th Amendment, which clearly stated in the first sentence of Article I, "All person 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 you would take the time to read the case as I have, you will have a much clearer understanding of the subject (and a nifty look back at the history of birthright citizenship and how it came to be - fascinating stuff).

 

You still haven't answered my question about the rapes, murders, drugs, gangs, robberies, etc. that illegals bring with them to this country. You're living in a delusional world where your eyes only let you see what your bleeding heart tells it to see. It's my guess that you're a wannabe limousine liberal who doesn't live or work in an area where an illegal can be found - all you get are your marching orders emailed to you daily from the likes of Obama and the democrat party. You're told by your masters that illegals are good, and like the obedient lemming you are you blindly follow without question or hesitation.

 

Are you not the one that stated it has been settled law since WKA?

Now you're claiming the 14th Amendment? The 14th has a requirement in it, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so if you have read WKA as you claim, this and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, refers to the Exchange from 1812, which discusses and expressed or implied license of entry (WKA)

....

This does not discuss illegal immigrants, this discusses crew members of foreign ships, Merchant or War, that are allowed in our ports and the crewman getting off ship and mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants. Thusly, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption. No where in WKA does Gray talk about or even discuss illegal immigrants, persons that have entered unbeknown to our govt. If WKA or the 14th settled children born to illegals in either 1898 (WKA) as you first claimed or now in 1868 (14th Amendment), then why did Clement Bouve author A Treatise of the Law in 1912 arguing that children born to illegals should be granted BRC? If, as you claim children born to illegals are granted BRC via settled law, then Bouve never would have needed to argue for the case that they should be granted.http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4891735?n=457&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=0.5&printThumbnails=no

Since you claim to have read and understand WKA and think you have a more clear and understanding of the decision than I do, what part of Grays Opinion do you think backs up your claim?

 

Didn't Reagan AND Bush give amnesty to illegal immigrants?