Hey Constitutional Originalists ...

#76
#76
utvolpj said:
is there any evidence that parents come across, the wife gives birth and then they go back home? That would seem to prove the anchor doesn't exist
Click to expand...


Really?

Since you can;t prove that the babies actually change the status of the parents for 21 years, you are now arguing that the illegal immigrant parents come hare and stay here because they had a baby here? What, that otherwise they'd have left?

Weak.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
Really?

Since you can;t prove that the babies actually change the status of the parents for 21 years, you are now arguing that the illegal immigrant parents come hare and stay here because they had a baby here? What, that otherwise they'd have left?

Weak.
Click to expand...

you can't seriously be naive enough to think that the govt benefits aren't a draw for illegals? take that away and of course many wouldn't come.
 
#78
#78
I think CashVallin has hijacked LG's account, the trolling aspect of his argument is too familiar for comfort
 
#79
#79
droski said:
if you are saying this isn't really a problem then surely you should have no objection to the change in the law.
Click to expand...

From what I gather, his more ill about the right doing what the left is doing and not stating their intent on how they read the constitution.

The actually issue of "illegal" immigrants does not factor.
 
#80
#80
lawgator1 said:
Really?

Since you can;t prove that the babies actually change the status of the parents for 21 years, you are now arguing that the illegal immigrant parents come hare and stay here because they had a baby here? What, that otherwise they'd have left?

Weak.
Click to expand...

who said they change the parent's status? Don't remember that one. The anchor is not to keep them here but it makes it extremely hard to remove them. A boat at anchor can still move but it's damn hard
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
Really?

Since you can;t prove that the babies actually change the status of the parents for 21 years, you are now arguing that the illegal immigrant parents come hare and stay here because they had a baby here? What, that otherwise they'd have left?

Weak.
Click to expand...

So the Obama admin. would allow the baby to stay, but send the parents home, because they broke the law coming here to begin with?

Sure.
 
#82
#82
BeecherVol said:
So the Obama admin. would allow the baby to stay, but send the parents home, because they broke the law coming here to begin with?

Sure.
Click to expand...

no administration is going to allow tv news networks to film crying mothers being ripped from their children which is exactly what would happen if they deported the partents of US citizens. i can't believe he's actually arguing this point.
 
#83
#83
Because the other point is ridiculous to argue. "Political dishonesty" Really?

Its not the actually issue, but the fact they don't proclaim their intent like the left does.
 
#84
#84
droski said:
you can't seriously be naive enough to think that the govt benefits aren't a draw for illegals? take that away and of course many wouldn't come.
Click to expand...


Of course they do. But saying they come here for benefits is different than saying they are allowed to stay (when they would otherwise leave) because of a "baby anchor."
 
#85
#85
BeecherVol said:
So the Obama admin. would allow the baby to stay, but send the parents home, because they broke the law coming here to begin with?

Sure.
Click to expand...


Yeah, this began in January 2008, (appropriate name insulting your obvious lack of intellect deleted)
 
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
Of course they do. But saying they come here for benefits is different than saying they are allowed to stay (when they would otherwise leave) because of a "baby anchor."
Click to expand...

once again it's two factors. they stay because they can milk the system since their kids are now citizens AND it make it harder to get deported. is this really this difficult to understand?
 
#88
#88
droski said:
once again it's two factors. they stay because they can milk the system since their kids are now citizens AND it make it harder to get deported. is this really this difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Understand? No.

Accept? Yes.
 
#89
#89
droski said:
once again it's two factors. they stay because they can milk the system since their kids are now citizens AND it make it harder to get deported. is this really this difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


Waiting for an iota of proof that is real.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
Waiting for an iota of proof that is real.
Click to expand...

i tell you what. you find me a single example of child who is a citizen where both parents got deported. waiting. . . surely if this doesn't happen it should be ridiculously easy to find such an example.
 
#93
#93
how is law right? she hasn't been deported and is using the child to stop from her getting deported. the la raza stats don't point to a single person actually being deported.
 
#94
#94
fl0at said:
You and droski are actually both right. In some cases, the parents are allowed to stay. In others, one or both parents are deported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17citizen.html
Click to expand...


I hardly think this supports droski. According to the article, 13,000 parents were sent back in 2006. Also, according to the article, most parents end up taking their child back home with them, even if under the 14th Amendment the child can stay.

It looks like, in 2007 anyway, the Bush administration changed the rules so that a nursing mother could remain out of custody. Doesn't say that they get to stay for the 21 years.

Reality is that this whole "baby anchor" label is nonsense, rhetorically designed to mislead people.

Again.
 
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
I hardly think this supports droski. According to the article, 13,000 parents were sent back in 2006. Also, according to the article, most parents end up taking their child back home with them, even if under the 14th Amendment the child can stay.

It looks like, in 2007 anyway, the Bush administration changed the rules so that a nursing mother could remain out of custody. Doesn't say that they get to stay for the 21 years.

Reality is that this whole "baby anchor" label is nonsense, rhetorically designed to mislead people.

Again.
Click to expand...

Based on that finding, at least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years after round-ups in factories and neighborhoods. The figures are expected to grow. Over all, about 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to a widely accepted estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

If my math is right, thats 0.04% that have been deported with a child as a legal citizen.
 
#96
#96
So both parties agree that fl0at is wrong. At least they are finding some common ground!
 
#97
#97
BeecherVol said:
Based on that finding, at least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years after round-ups in factories and neighborhoods. The figures are expected to grow. Over all, about 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to a widely accepted estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

If my math is right, thats 0.04% that have been deported with a child as a legal citizen.
Click to expand...


Please tell me you do not have a job that involves math.
 
#99
#99
BeecherVol said:
Not really.

But I thought you would like the rest of the thread to know the context of your 13,000.
Click to expand...


That is one of the funniest/saddest things I've ever read here.

Do I really need to explain to you the GLARING mathematical errors in your comment?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top