quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Illegals are swarming here because Obama is giving them a wink and a nod, and purposely failing to do his sworn job of upholding our laws

He is a traitor, for giving aid and comfort to an invading army because he thinks they will vote (illegally vote) for the Democrat party. For socialism, something CITIZENS wont knowingly vote for

(Viva la slavery, here is your assigned value comrade motherfucker, enjoy your equality and lick my boot, bitch)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Illegals are swarming here because Obama is giving them a wink and a nod, and purposely failing to do his sworn job of upholding our laws

He is a traitor, for giving aid and comfort to an invading army because he thinks they will vote (illegally vote) for the Democrat party. For socialism, something CITIZENS wont knowingly vote for

(Viva la slavery, here is your assigned value comrade motherfucker, enjoy your equality and lick my boot, bitch)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Same bollocks, different day.

Edits to add a link to the facts, since you seem unable to find them.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


100% lunatic. One would think he was the original American Indian living here centuries ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


100% lunatic. One would think he was the original American Indian living here centuries ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


100% lunatic. One would think he was the original American Indian living here centuries ago.

First Americans suffer from the leftist flood of cheap labor almost as much as blacks and teens do

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
But the ORIGINAL Americans wised up and used the treaties the white man "let" them have to break the poverty chains using the white mans own money and greed.

Because people like you sanity treated them worse than immigrants until they started building casinos. Now unlike immigrants they don't need to work like illegal aliens on their own land.
They have AHCA-like healthcare, they have more kids going to colleges, and wonder of wonders......they even hire white people and pay them (gasp!!) living wages! (was that enough sarcasm?)

Now the conservative assholes want to make the Native Americans pay more to make up for the deficit spending the GOP allways does when the GOP is in power after letting their reservations sink into squalor for decades. just so damn typical of cons

......notice how sanity gets when somebody doesn't care about the names he spews at them?......like now...LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

LOL!!! youre kidding right?? you have got to be!! Did you just pop your head out your ass and are just NOW shocked to see illegals here???

seriously you need to lay off the peyote buttons bucky. and that batch of pot brownies too..... just put it down and drink some CLEAN water..... that Kool-Aid the GOP gave you has fermented elephant pee in it or something....

This kind of illegal immigration has been going on since before the 1960's!!! There are streets in the USA with names after latino leaders who helped illegal farm workers get what little protections they have!!

you cannot be so god-awful stupid to not know this is not just on Obama. BOTH bush Presidents did no more than Obama's done and you'd be hard pressed to prove they didn't do a lot less.

All this crap about immigrants is a GOP distractive maneuver to get people to not notice the GOP's economic policies do nothing but suck for working class people. the GOP lost on healthcare, same with Gay marriage, and the economy is several times better than it was when the last bush got done wacking it into almost a total depression.

maybe you are better off sanity with your head back where it was. you keep that noggin of yours away from the GOP elephants backside....the gas from it is making that last brain cell of yours incapable of working.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
But the ORIGINAL Americans wised up and used the treaties the white man "let" them have to break the poverty chains using the white mans own money and greed.

Because people like you sanity treated them worse than immigrants until they started building casinos. Now unlike immigrants they don't need to work like illegal aliens on their own land.
They have AHCA-like healthcare, they have more kids going to colleges, and wonder of wonders......they even hire white people and pay them (gasp!!) living wages! (was that enough sarcasm?)

Now the conservative assholes want to make the Native Americans pay more to make up for the deficit spending the GOP allways does when the GOP is in power after letting their reservations sink into squalor for decades. just so damn typical of cons

......notice how sanity gets when somebody doesn't care about the names he spews at them?......like now...LOL

You are out of your mind

Not all native Americans own casinos, for one thing...

You are simply insane, and projecting your own values, apparently

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

was for subsidies to be available to anyone signing up on a State-run or Federal-run exchange.
Clearly, those two things oppose each other.

Those are not the two things I spoke of.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
"level the wage playing field" = We are all slaves to our master government, which shall set our net worth regardless of our individual endeavors

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
I would agree that is the opinion of two out of about 240 senators and representatives in the 39th congress. What I feel is necessary to the understanding of the bill are the opinions of all 240 not just 2.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

quote:
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
According to the article, there was no limitation on immigration.
So, where do you get that the newly freed slaves were "illegal aliens?"

I do not know what your reference is for the above statement but if one reads the "Naturalization Act of 1790 it is pretty clear as to who may come and who may not and what one must do to change ones status from tourist to citizen.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

was for subsidies to be available to anyone signing up on a State-run or Federal-run exchange.
Clearly, those two things oppose each other.

Those are not the two things I spoke of.

quote:

You asked how they could oppose each other. I gave you an example

quote:

I don't give a rat's ass if it wasn't what you wanted to talk about.

quote:

You asked, and I gave you an example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
I would agree that is the opinion of two out of about 240 senators and representatives in the 39th congress. What I feel is necessary to the understanding of the bill are the opinions of all 240 not just 2.

quote:

Yeah, but Senator Howard was the one that wrote that part, so, he just might know what he's talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

was for subsidies to be available to anyone signing up on a State-run or Federal-run exchange.
Clearly, those two things oppose each other.

Those are not the two things I spoke of.

quote:

You asked how they could oppose each other. I gave you an example

I asked how the bill could oppose the discussion of those who wrote it. You cited the SCOTUS who did not write it.

quote:

quote:

I don't give a rat's ass if it wasn't what you wanted to talk about.

You don't give a rat's ass about giving an honest answer?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
I would agree that is the opinion of two out of about 240 senators and representatives in the 39th congress. What I feel is necessary to the understanding of the bill are the opinions of all 240 not just 2.

Yeah, but Senator Howard was the one that wrote that part, so, he just might know what he's talking about.

I would agree that is the opinion of two out of about 240 senators and representatives in the 39th congress. What I feel is necessary to the understanding of the bill are the opinions of all 240 not just 2.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ETA: The quoted section was from the article I cited in that same post. Had you read my link, you'd have had a clue what my reference was.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

No, I don't feel both are necessary, especially when they oppose each other.


How would it be possible for them to oppose one another? Correct me if I am mistaken but when a law is proposed isn't there debate(in committee and on the floor)and finally a vote is taken and the votes are tallied. Wouldn't you agree that knowledge of the process from start to finish would be more useful than simply the tally?



Gee, I don't know....

Obamacare subsidies?

As written, they are only for those who sign up on the State-run exchanges.

Intent (as deduced by the SCOTUS in opposition to Gruber's allegations) was for subsidies to be available to anyone signing up on a State-run or Federal-run exchange.



Clearly, those two things oppose each other.

If you want to go through the discussion process to figure things out, are you still going to argue that the 14th Amendment wasn't intended to include children of illegal aliens?

quote:

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.



quote:

quote:

I don't know that slaves were illegal aliens. Please cite your source demonstrating that we knew them as illegals.


How shall we define illegal alien? I think it fair to say that a citizen cannot be an illegal alien. Also fair to say that a tourist could not be an illegal alien as they would have had official papers (passport/visa) declaring their intent to return to their country of origin. They clearly are not citizens, as defined by the constitution. They are clearly not tourist, as they hold no passport nor visa. They have no status except that of non-citizen,non tourist...if one is in the U.S. today and they are not a citizen nor a document holder of some sort one is an illegal alien.


quote:

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.



According to the article, there was no limitation on immigration.

So, where do you get that the newly freed slaves were "illegal aliens?"