You owe, big time.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Just ask the people who advocate for illegal aliens. And they want the first payment, pronto!

http://derailamnestydotcom.blogspot.com/2010/08/start-paying-now.html

[ilbegone]

I didn't google the "down payment" thing.

I believe that those who grew up here from a young age should, with some important restrictions, be classified as permanent residents without voting rights and no claim to special treatment due to their ancestry.

No in state tuition, no sponsorship for others to enter and become citizens, no short cuts to the front of any line, and an end to scholarships based on race or ethnicity.

And fix the 14th amendment so that there is a clear definition exactly as to who is a citizen by birth - no birthright for those born here to illegal parents, and a clear time line as to who will be affected.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I didn't google the "down payment" thing.

I believe that those who grew up here from a young age should, with some important restrictions, be classified as permanent residents without voting rights and no claim to special treatment due to their ancestry.

No in state tuition, no sponsorship for others to enter and become citizens, no short cuts to the front of any line, and an end to scholarships based on race or ethnicity.

And fix the 14th amendment so that there is a clear definition exactly as to who is a citizen by birth - no birthright for those born here to illegal parents, and a clear time line as to who will be affected.


Interesting. And in your scenario, what is the status of the American-born children of these former illegal aliens that've been granted non-voting permanent resident status?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Interesting. And in your scenario, what is the status of the American-born children of these former illegal aliens that've been granted non-voting permanent resident status?

Transients

[ilbegone]

Interesting. And in your scenario, what is the status of the American-born children of these former illegal aliens that've been granted non-voting permanent resident status?

Respectfully, I believe the text is clear and speaks for itself. And concerning non voting legal status I am not referring to the American born, nor of the children of "former illegal aliens". I refer to those who were brought here at an early age and are the children of illegal aliens. The "important restrictions" have to do with those who have a criminal history or who are otherwise a net drain to our society, such as those who perpetually take undue advantage of our social services.

The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is the law at this time concerning those who were born here. I do not relish the thought of those whose parents I would deport becoming voters, but they will and I believe nothing is going to change that current fact. I believe I will have to live with the fact of brown racists capitalizing on the deportation of these current children's parents.

So, my belief is to revisit the 14th amendment with a clear cut off date as to who has birthright citizenship as it is currently interpreted, and all those born in the US after that date can never be entitled to US birthright citizenship.

And get rid of chain migration like it's melted metal in our hands.

Then after that, move on the best we can to maintain our national sovereignty while doing the best we can to incorporate and become "us" with those aforementioned citizens who will surely and genuinely hate us for deporting their close relatives.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

It isn't. You talked about no birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegals, but under your scheme, the parents (minors who were brought here unlawfully and are now adults) are no longer illegals. They're in the country lawfully. So what is the status of the American-born children of former illegals who are now non-citizen (and non-voting) lawful residents?

[ilbegone]

You can interpret me and carry on however you like. The text is clear and I'm not going to argue it any further.

[ilbegone]

I see what you're getting at now.

This is my mode of thinking.


The ones who grow up here don't belong to another country, regardless of what both sides say. However, I don't believe they should be citizens either.

Their children will be citizens. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully in the years between the grandparents being here illegally and their citizen grandchildren coming of age a handle is gotten on racist brown separatists, clueless or separatist "educators", and media which classifies and pushes us apart according to our skin colors and extremist presumption of ethnicity, and maybe we will have a chance of becoming us.

Do I think any of this is going to be easy? No. Not at all.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

OK. Now I understand.

I was wondering which way you were going to go because, based upon your suggestion (legalizing the illegals brought here as minors, but not granting citizenship), you are going to succeed in doing one of two things. It's unavoidable. You chose "B."

A. Create a permanent underclass in American society. People who, for generations, occupy a sub-citizen caste.

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

[Twoller]

Nobody who has a non-citizen ancestor should be considered a US citizen. Nobody should be grandfathered. How long has this been going on? Isn't it obvious that the whole strategy is to create a situation "on the ground", to create a situation that appears to be unavoidable and uncontestable? A fait accompli?

Those who find they are not really US citizens can apply for citizenship. Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents, which is still to say, not very eligible at this point, but still more eligible than their parents.

[ilbegone]

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

I don't think it's really rewarding illegal families. Those who are ultimately responsible for personal illegality will be deported, those who came here with something other than the motivations of a child.

Chain migration is ended, the parents, cousins and everyone else returns to and/or stays in their home country.

No one who ever entered the United states with adult reasoning will be eligible for citizenship, nor anyone who entered as a child after a certain cut off date (in cunjunction with correct interpretation of 14th amendment, see below) be eligible for permanent residency.

Furthermore, those who are not citizens yet are genuine criminals, those who have willfully failed to become minimally educated, and those who take undue advantage of our social services - gone faster than you can blink your eyes - regardless of their circumstances.

No more dual citizenship, no more divided loyalties, make a choice. If one chooses to be a citizen of another country, then the benefits of American citizenship doesn't apply to that person. And get the hell out, head first and airborne if necessary.

And the politicians and employers who let this mess fester for their own gain over the last twenty four years are drawn and quartered. Those are the ones who REALLY need to suffer for their sins, and I believe all too often we forget that fact.

Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents

I believe you are missing the point.

Generally speaking, the main difference between someone who was born here to illegal parents and someone who was brought here at a very young age by illegal parents is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, if the parents, aunts, uncles, and other persons who depend on a child's American citizenship as a springboard to America are now deportable, those children born here to illegal parents are no longer "anchor" babies.

While I firmly believe that the 14th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied in its background context (and applied in a firm "born before - born after" mode concerning children of illegals), I don't believe in revoking citizenship of anyone who has previously enjoyed birthright citizenship, which would probably include everyone at this board as well as anchor babies.

Revocation of citizenship is a can of worms, which if not very narrowly applied, could turn into a sort of French revolutionary style guillotine, a weapon applied to the "enemies" of the "cause" to begin with, then feasting on its creators. If one has studied history, one sees how that one could get out of control fast.

I would reserve revocation of citizenship for those who fraudulently obtained naturalization, including adult illegal presence prior to naturalization for others than those who grew up in the United States.

Getting back to the children of illegals. Generally speaking, if someone has grown up in the United States, they don't belong to another country. Particularly grass roots Latin America, which will reject them for their cultural American - ness, regardless of how we interpret them in the light of our own American experience.

[Twoller]

....

Generally speaking, the main difference between someone who was born here to illegal parents and someone who was brought here at a very young age by illegal parents is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, if the parents, aunts, uncles, and other persons who depend on a child's American citizenship as a springboard to America are now deportable, those children born here to illegal parents are no longer "anchor" babies.

While I firmly believe that the 14th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied in its background context (and applied in a firm "born before - born after" mode concerning children of illegals), I don't believe in revoking citizenship of anyone who has previously enjoyed birthright citizenship, which would probably include everyone at this board as well as anchor babies.

Revocation of citizenship is a can of worms, which if not very narrowly applied, could turn into a sort of French revolutionary style guillotine, a weapon applied to the "enemies" of the "cause" to begin with, then feasting on its creators. If one has studied history, one sees how that one could get out of control fast.

I would reserve revocation of citizenship for those who fraudulently obtained naturalization, including adult illegal presence prior to naturalization for others than those who grew up in the United States.

Getting back to the children of illegals. Generally speaking, if someone has grown up in the United States, they don't belong to another country. Particularly grass roots Latin America, which will reject them for their cultural American - ness, regardless of how we interpret them in the light of our own American experience.

Nobody who has a non-citizen as an ancestor has any business claiming to be a citizen of the United States. By that I mean if you have an ancestor who claimed birth right citizenship and who did not have both parents who were citizens, then you are not a US citizen. Of course, if any of your ancestors applied for and successfully became citizens, then this would not apply to you. We are talking about birth right citizenship and the consequences of confronting the problem of the corruption of this institution. Nobody who is not the offspring of both parents who are US citizens has any business claiming birthright citizenship and none of their offspring either.

The notion that children born of non-citizen parents just naturally are Americans is utterly derelict and really just ignores the issue of ESL classes and the endless language services that are supposed to be available for "citizens". But we see another new dodge here, the idea that these anchor babies are no longer accepted "culturally" by the countries their parents, or grandparents, or great-great grandparents snuck in from. Even despite the fact that English is still a second language to them, if at all. Even if they make a big deal out of identifying with the country they came from before their host country.

But you know what? If the country they came from rejects them "culturally", so what? It's not our problem. And how many of these countries care about protecting the US from illegal immigration from those countries? Do we really care about whether Mexico does not see it's anchor babies as Mexican any more? And if that's true, then why all the fuss when Mexico sees its infestation here in the US confronted in any way?

[ilbegone]

It's not a "dodge" concerning cultural differences, it's the truth.

I know people who have thick accents, and understand but don't speak Spanish. They are people in between, despised both by people like you and their parent's countrymen as well. Exploitation style American employers don't generally want to hire them as well, too much American taint. The American born being seen as Mexican only works to the differing goals of the Mexican government and American brown separatists and their deluded lackeys. Otherwise, it's generally not worth a crap to anyone else. They, like their parents, are pawns worked to various political goals.

And blanket revocation of citizenship is a dangerous thing, where does it end? Get it started under any but the most narrow of circumstances, and it just might morph into something which reaches and touches you as well.

Much better to have the 14th amendment clarified as to its original intent and go by a certain cut off date of born before or after, as outlined in my above post.

Other than that, I'm not going to get into an endless cycle of arguing with you over what tint of blue the sky is or what time of day it is somewhere - anywhere here or else in the world: Greenwich meantime, international atomic time, Texas time, military time, Indian time, quarterly versus seasonal time, fiscal period, what semester we're in, lunar cycle, Gregorian calendar, Julian calender, BC-AD, BCE-CE, Mayan calendar, time for lunch, time for supper, time to hit the ol' fart sack, Howdy Doody time, effective time, work time, break time, time line, martini time, beer thirty, time for a cold'un, relaxation time, space time continuem, International date line, competitive time, 8 second rider, three minute wonder, gestation time or any other kind of time.

[Twoller]

You have completely failed to grasp the problem and the situation.

Mexico and Mexicans have systematically established a population of people in the US who cannot be citizens. They are not the only ones doing this, language is not always an issue.

It does not matter what kind of hardships threaten those people falsely claiming US citizenship because they had a non-citizen ancestor somewhere back. It does not matter. That is part of the excuse and leverage being applied against US citizenship. The hardships that loom for those people is not the problem of US citizens. We are being deliberately attacked by having our country flooded by non-citizens. The interests of US citizens come first. Next comes the interests of naturalized citizens, all those people who have come in legally, applied for US citizenship and legitimately achieved it. As long as they are good citizens, then their citizenship should not be questioned.

But all the rest and their descendents represent an act of aggression and subversion and need to be confronted as such.

Isn't it obvious what you are proposing in some kind of cut off date? It is amnesty and can only exist as a leverage point and more opportunity for illegal immigrants and their anchor babies.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I don't think it's really rewarding illegal families. Those who are ultimately responsible for personal illegality will be deported, those who came here with something other than the motivations of a child


Of course it is, and under the circumstances you have described, here's how it plays out:

Pablo and Juanita decide they want a better life for themselves and their children Paco, Pedro and Pepe. The parents decide that, in pursuit of this goal, they will unlawfully relocate to the United States and engage in whatever law violations will be necessary to perpetuate the family's existence there.

Pablo and Juanita sneak through Pima County, obtain jobs after settling themselves in an American city, and 6 months later manage to get the kids across the border, as well.

The family avoids detection for X period of time, at the conclusion of which they are "caught." Deportation proceedings for illegal residency commence immediately and it is quickly discovered that Paco and Juanita's children (now adults) were brought in as minors. Resultingly, Paco, Pedro and Pepe are granted permanent resident status, and Pablo and Juanita are deported back home (never to return).

As a direct result of their multiple law violations in pursuance of "The Better Life" objective (Conspiracy, Unlicensed Driving, Fraud, Identity Theft, Employment For Compensation While An Unlawful Resident, etc.) Pablo and Juanita have been rewarded with the following (at a bare minimum):

1. Legal residence in the U.S. for their children.
2. American citizenship for any and all of their grandchildren and family members produced by the grandchildren/later generations.
3. Multiple family members with the ability to obtain U.S. dollars and send them to Pablo and Juanita in the home country.


Essentially, the concept you authored provides the family a smaller reward than the amnesty in '86 or the Bush/Obama "comprehensive immigration reform" scheme, but the pay off for Pablo and Juanita's criminal undertaking is still considerable.

[ilbegone]

You have completely failed to grasp the problem and the situation.

But all the rest and their descendents represent an act of aggression and subversion and need to be confronted as such.


I fully grasp the problem, and I see the situation.

You see it linear and black and white, I see it in color 3D.

What I propose earns me enmity from both sides, and if you actually read what I wrote above, it is actually quite harsh. It also has drawbacks for myself, but it is what I think best.

Your quoted paragraph in this post shows quite a bit of ignorant bigotry, why don't you be a man of your word and pick someone off the street that fits your profile and confront them?

And don't be harassing old women or little kids, pick someone who has calloused hands.

As I stated to you some time ago, If you and your buddies ever show up on my porch with your expressed attitude, I promise you a lesson on why you should be a little more self reflective.

[ilbegone]

Of course it is, and under the circumstances you have described, here's how it plays out:

Pablo and Juanita decide they want a better life for themselves and their children Paco, Pedro and Pepe. The parents decide that, in pursuit of this goal, they will unlawfully relocate to the United States and engage in whatever law violations will be necessary to perpetuate the family's existence there.

Pablo and Juanita sneak through Pima County, obtain jobs after settling themselves in an American city, and 6 months later manage to get the kids across the border, as well.

The family avoids detection for X period of time, at the conclusion of which they are "caught." Deportation proceedings for illegal residency commence immediately and it is quickly discovered that Paco and Juanita's children (now adults) were brought in as minors. Resultingly, Paco, Pedro and Pepe are granted permanent resident status, and Pablo and Juanita are deported back home (never to return).

As a direct result of their multiple law violations in pursuance of "The Better Life" objective (Conspiracy, Unlicensed Driving, Fraud, Identity Theft, Employment For Compensation While An Unlawful Resident, etc.) Pablo and Juanita have been rewarded with the following (at a bare minimum):

1. Legal residence in the U.S. for their children.
2. American citizenship for any and all of their grandchildren and family members produced by the grandchildren/later generations.
3. Multiple family members with the ability to obtain U.S. dollars and send them to Pablo and Juanita in the home country.


Essentially, the concept you authored provides the family a smaller reward than the amnesty in '86 or the Bush/Obama "comprehensive immigration reform" scheme, but the pay off for Pablo and Juanita's criminal undertaking is still considerable.

You have the right to disagree with me, that's fine.

When the Mexican grandmother dies, the family is no longer Mexican. In my scenario, grandma ain't around, and familial connections become a distant memory.

Besides, at least until the last few years (with the problems in Mexico becoming intolerable), Mexicans didn't come here for a better life in America. They came to make money and return to Mexico. But they get wrapped up in the convenience of Walmart and rarely make enough money to buy that ranch. The weeks slip into years, and after a while, while not really liking America, they themselves have changed to where Mexico is no longer "comfortable".

And I'm not denying that Mexicans game our system or that there are not criminals among them, they do and there are.

But the adults have the memory of Mexico, the children don't.

If you actually read what I proposed, the criminals and slackers among those brought here as children get sent back with or in addition to their parents. The others are the ones I propose permanent non voting residency for.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

When the Mexican grandmother dies, the family is no longer Mexican. In my scenario, grandma ain't around, and familial connections become a distant memory.

The question is not whether the family is "Mexican" or not. In fact, under your plan, the majority of the family isn't (later offspring will soon outnumber the original nuclear family that entered unlawfully). They're either American permanent legal residents or U.S. citizens.

The question is whether or not your scheme rewards families who engage in illegal alien conduct.

It undoubtedly does. Above, two family members get sent back (wealthier than they came in, and with quality prospects for receiving assistance from El Norte that they didn't have before). Meanwhile every other family member has landed the lottery prize of life in the wealthiest, most egalitarian nation on Earth.

And the only reason any of this fell into their laps is because Pablo and Juanita undertook premeditated and systematic criminal activities in our nation.


But the adults have the memory of Mexico, the children don't.

You mean like these children? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ9mpBSqZs0

[ilbegone]

Needed deletion....

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I'm not going to hit the link designated "these children".

If someone looked long and hard enough, they would find a picture of your mother with her coochie hanging out in the most embarrassing of situations.

And don't think that women of your mother's age didn't calculate their benefits concerning "love".

So spare me the gratuitous photography or text and either engage in meaningful discussion or ignore me.


Gratuitous? Coochie? Mom?

Wow, where did that come from?

Dude, chill. I'm analyzing what you proposed, not deriding you.

Since you appear to be more than a bit sensitive about this topic (this is the second time you snapped at me in this thread), I'll keep this real short and not post anything further:

Your plan rewards families of illegal aliens for knowingly violating our laws. And a lot of the beneficiaries of the residency rights your plan doles out, don't feel a great deal of appreciation or allegiance to the U.S. Further, the people who will be saddled with the expenses and imposition of uninvited foreign nationals now permanently amongst us, that your plan results in, are American citizen taxpayers who have done nothing wrong.

Absolutely best case scenario with your plan - In a few generations all traces of loyalties to Raza separatism, allegiance to foreign nations and disrespect for America are absent from the progeny of the illegals you let stay. Further, all offspring of people your plan provided amnesty to are educated, self-sufficient and paying more than their fair share in taxes.

That's all great, assuming everything works out perfectly, except for one thing. You, me and everyone who reads this thread today will have been dead for many years.

I have an alternate proposal: Throw illegals out and permanently bar them from readmission to the United States. Then reduce legal immigration into this country from Mexico and other major violators of our nation's sovereignty, by two thirds.

Absolutely best case scenario with my proposal - The U.S. is no longer a dumping ground for the impoverished, excess population that Latin America sees fit to send our way. And perhaps most significantly, you, me and everyone reading this get to have a few years wherein we actually reside in America again and are spared from having to cohabitate, for the rest of our days, with the offspring of criminals your scheme turns into our permanent neighbors.

Have a nice day and go in peace.

[ilbegone]

SZ,

I snapped at you once, which was today, the first delivery was a reply to twoller. You may have taken an earlier assertion to the effect that I'm not going to be badgered as a "snap". And I saw that when you read what I had to say to you today, you left for a while to work your mouth around and get some composure to word things a little better in your replying post.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from, I don't think you will get it.

We were eating breakfast this morning when an ancient Mexican tune softly came over the speakers in the restaurant. Both Elena and the much younger Mexican woman serving us, in their different places, began singing quietly to the song. AS I was eating my Huevos con chorizo and beans with torn pieces of tortilla, I mused how at the same time these women were much alike and yet had such a chasm between them.

Elena's father was from a Mexico which is no more yet will always be. A much older and long deceased brother was a tail gunner over Germany. As a child, Elena and her young cousins had been run across the highway and over the tracks by adult white men simply for wanting to get ice cream from a "white" establishment.

On the other hand, I despise the Mexicans who took over a former trade and the presumptuousness of many of them. As a rule, I don't trust Mexicans, and when any of them address me as "my friend" one too many times, which is more than once, I become suspicious. However, as I have stated here before, I'm in a weird place in my head with Mexican Nationals - all at the same time I love them and I hate them all.

Yet I've also been around many of their adult children - people with all sorts of outlooks, personalities, and various proclivities. However, regardless of what type of people they individually are, they are not their parents.

I am curious about them all, I learn as much as I can about them. "They" are not all the same, particularly through the extended generations.

Yet to you and twoller, it seems every one of "them" is a gang banging spray painting "anchor baby" reconquista menace who habitually pisses in public while swigging forty ouncers.


So, I have to extend my middle finger when I'm blanketed with "amnesty for criminals" and directed to a youtube entry which is sure to feature a bunch of brown knuckle heads.

You insulted me when you did that. To me you are suggesting that crap like that is a part of my household and the extended family as well.

There's not much difference between your stereotyping and those who bandy about pictures of white trailer trash surrounded by a mountain of empty beer cans as if you personally had an address there. And I stick to my assertion that if someone looks long and hard enough, there will surface an embarrassing picture of someone in your family, maybe even of you.

As an addendum, I will admit that going over your last two posts again they weren't quite like I took them, nor have I hit the youtube link.

[Kathy63]

The children of illegal aliens who were born here are entitled to have, and most of them DO have, dual citizenship. The children of mexicans who are here legally, perhaps even citizens also hold dual citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with sending people to a country where they are citizens whether or not they have ever been there.

We did not always allow dual citizenship. At one time claiming the citizenship of another country constituted a voluntary relinquishment of American citizenship. That would end the controversy.

[Commander Bunny]

The children of illegal aliens who were born here are entitled to have, and most of them DO have, dual citizenship. The children of mexicans who are here legally, perhaps even citizens also hold dual citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with sending people to a country where they are citizens whether or not they have ever been there.

We did not always allow dual citizenship. At one time claiming the citizenship of another country constituted a voluntary relinquishment of American citizenship. That would end the controversy.
I spent about 7 years in Germany after I married my Wife, and decided to move to Her country and go through a pastry chefs aprenticeship, then worked for a few years there.
When I decided to return to the US I was turned -around in Baltimore and sent back to Stutgart because all I had was a German passport, and blew past the INS checpoint when I arrived, not thinking about it.

It took about 3-4 months of going to the US Cosulate to get things straightened out, and Me back to Ca.