Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,435

    Bilbray: White House playing games with immigration

    Bilbray: White House playing games with immigration
    By Molly K. Hooper
    Posted: 06/13/09 10:59 PM [ET]

    Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) accused the White House on Saturday of playing politics with immigration reform, after President Obama delayed meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the topic this upcoming week.

    The longtime anti-illegal-immigration lawmaker questioned the administration’s motives in setting up a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress on comprehensive reform only to exclude key GOP members, on both sides of the dome, from the session that White House officials announced last Friday had to be rescheduled for the second time.

    “Do you really want to get a consensus or are you just putting together people that you agree with for a political maneuver?
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member builditnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    A Midwest State in North AmeXica
    Posts
    1,845
    McCain, a longtime proponent of guest-worker programs and granting amnesty to illegal aliens, joined forces with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former President George W. Bush to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, but their efforts were stymied by conservative interest groups opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
    And ALIPAC was one of those groups that played a major role in stopping the efforts of Juan McCain and Jorge Bush.

    And we will be there when they try it again.

    Hey pro-amnesty advocates: Don't think for a second you've got this thing in the bag, just because you have a president in favor, and a Democrat majority in Congress - you had both last time too.
    <div>Number*U.S. military*in S.Korea to protect their border with N.Korea: 28,000. Number*U.S. military*on 2000 mile*U.S. southern border to protect ourselves from*the war in our own backyard: 1,200 National Guard.</

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TEXAS - The Lone Star State
    Posts
    16,941
    Quote Originally Posted by builditnow
    McCain, a longtime proponent of guest-worker programs and granting amnesty to illegal aliens, joined forces with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and former President George W. Bush to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, but their efforts were stymied by conservative interest groups opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
    And ALIPAC was one of those groups that played a major role in stopping the efforts of Juan McCain and Jorge Bush.

    And we will be there when they try it again.

    Hey pro-amnesty advocates: Don't think for a second you've got this thing in the bag, just because you have a president in favor, and a Democrat majority in Congress - you had both last time too.
    AND talk radio telling its listeners to make phone calls and dont stop

  4. #4
    Senior Member immigration2009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,118

    Never: Amnesty

    You will not get amnesty illegal aliens. You must leave the United States because you broke immigration laws. And Democrats you must listen to us, US citizens. You some of you Republicans, do not help the Democrats. Democrats will not get elected next elections.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    11,242
    Obama and Emanuel are too smart to get caught up in the illegal mess. And, I think the Dems up for re-election don't really want to touch this subject either.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    553
    We must keep stressing the fact that all we really need is enforcement, as well as remove the anchor baby law.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by onetrickydude
    We must keep stressing the fact that all we really need is enforcement, as well as remove the anchor baby law.
    Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.

    It simply doesn’t make sense that this common, yet self-serving misinterpretation of the amendment is what was intended when it was drafted.

    If I and many other Americans are correct, then no law needs to be written to overturn this, and would in fact lend credence to this despicable misinterpretation and may inadvertently grant citizenship to existing so-called anchor babies.

    Someone tell me if I’m mistaken, because I, we, need to get this right. But I’ve got to tell you, I have such alarm bells going off in my gut over this one, and I just can’t ignore them.
    <div>
    </div>

  8. #8
    Senior Member ReggieMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,527
    [quote]"Patience is wearing thin in the Latino and immigrant communities and President Obama needs to follow through with the commitment he made to more than 10 million Latinos that voted in the last presidential election,
    "A Nation of sheep will beget a government of Wolves" -Edward R. Murrow

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Senior Member builditnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    A Midwest State in North AmeXica
    Posts
    1,845
    melena29 wrote:
    Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.
    Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

    Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

    Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

    When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.
    <div>Number*U.S. military*in S.Korea to protect their border with N.Korea: 28,000. Number*U.S. military*on 2000 mile*U.S. southern border to protect ourselves from*the war in our own backyard: 1,200 National Guard.</

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by builditnow
    melena29 wrote:
    Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.
    Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

    Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

    Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

    When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.
    Check out this link and let me know what you think.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution
    <div>
    </div>

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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