Skip to main content

An easy path to citizenship would be for anyone who wants illegals to have the rights, should raise their hand and give up their citizenship for the illegal. That would apply from the top down so the President and the Politicans, no matter what party, can take the citizenship of a person they want to make a U.S. citizen. How would the new non-citizen be handled? Send them to the country that they gave up their rights for. Adios, to those who will not be happy till we are a turd world nation.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Bulldog63: In light of the fact that we do not enforce existing laws relative to the illegals, I don't see any benefit to changing the current laws. The last amnesty was done by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and it was supposed to increase border security and ensure stricter enforcement of our laws. In Reagans time it was 3 million, now they are talking about 12 million!

Originally Posted by renecillo7:

Bulldog63: In light of the fact that we do not enforce existing laws relative to the illegals, I don't see any benefit to changing the current laws. The last amnesty was done by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and it was supposed to increase border security and ensure stricter enforcement of our laws. In Reagans time it was 3 million, now they are talking about 12 million!

___

 

Was that the same Ronald Reagan who exprerssed so much concern for the size of government and then proceeded to increase the size of government?

 

Was that the same Ronald Reagan who was so antagonistic to the notion of budget deficits and debt increasea and who then proceeded to routinely produce both of them throughout his two terms? 

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by renecillo7:

Bulldog63: In light of the fact that we do not enforce existing laws relative to the illegals, I don't see any benefit to changing the current laws. The last amnesty was done by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and it was supposed to increase border security and ensure stricter enforcement of our laws. In Reagans time it was 3 million, now they are talking about 12 million!

___

 

Was that the same Ronald Reagan who exprerssed so much concern for the size of government and then proceeded to increase the size of government?

 

Was that the same Ronald Reagan who was so antagonistic to the notion of budget deficits and debt increasea and who then proceeded to routinely produce both of them throughout his two terms? 

Yep! The very one. Relative to this subject matter though, I think that Reagan really thought that the problem was resolved. Little did he know that now years later we are back to square one with 4 times the problem.

Yeah, just like california where the birth rate is down, more people going on the "dole", not enough paying taxes to support the ones on that dole, and more and more productive people leaving the state because they're tired of being taxed to death to pay for others. Yep, we need more working and paying taxes, too bad that can't happen since there are no jobs for way too many of the ones that would actually pay those taxes, and way too many working that don't pay taxes.

Good suggestion that all the people who think we should just throw open the doors and bring in the rest of the world and take care of them, be the ones that do it. Something along the lines of "adopt an illegal" maybe. Then they and they alone can be responsible, on their own with no government help, for paying for all the illegals wants and needs and leave the rest of us alone to take care of our own citizens. What good is a lifeboat on a ship if they are only going to overload it to the point of sinking it?

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Truth is the birth rate of the US citizens is declining and has for some time. We actually need more people here, working and paying taxes . Otherwise, we won't have enough money to invest in our infrastructure to build a better America for our kids and grandkids.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Sadly more illegals per capita get on welfare than U.S. citizens which ends up causing a much greater drain on resources for legal citizens.  No way illegals should get the aid from the government that should go to U.S. citizens who paid taxes who are in need.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn....eople-get-welfare-2/

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Truth is the birth rate of the US citizens is declining and has for some time. We actually need more people here, working and paying taxes . Otherwise, we won't have enough money to invest in our infrastructure to build a better America for our kids and grandkids.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

seeweed: How in the world do you do this without opening the floodgates? It's almost like telling them "You may as well go ahead and rob the bank since you allready broke in"!

Originally Posted by renecillo7:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Truth is the birth rate of the US citizens is declining and has for some time. We actually need more people here, working and paying taxes . Otherwise, we won't have enough money to invest in our infrastructure to build a better America for our kids and grandkids.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

seeweed: How in the world do you do this without opening the floodgates? It's almost like telling them "You may as well go ahead and rob the bank since you allready broke in"!

===============

You made an assumption on my post that I did not say. I am for securing the borders, but we already have a tens of thousands of people who are here illegally, and the "Dream Act" is to allow a fast path to citizenship for those who were brought here  as children. 

I'm not going to even start to argue with Jenifer who thinks everybody but her is on the dole, and someone that irrational is not worth the time to argue with.

However, back to the point, we do need more and more people to make up for our reproductive rate becoming stagnant or going down.About 20 years ago we were worried that we were going to be taken over by the Japanese, and now Japan is suffering from exactly the condition I originally described. The same thing will happen to China with their 1 child policy. Russia has recognized that they will be facing the same thing, and they are attempting to give incentives for their people to have more children, but history has shown that incentives are only partially successful. The higher educated a family is, and the better off it is financially, typically the less children they have, and this less children thing is happening world wide. 

Time will tell if it will be a good thing, as the Earth has some finite carrying ability, but for a nation to prosper, it needs an ever expanding population. 

Again, just my opinion. 

You are not just looking at 12 million new people. Unless it has changed, if it is a couple then the 2 parents of each  adult can come, all brothers and sisters of the adult family and all brothers and sisters of the immediate family and I believe the 1st and maybe 2nd cousin of the children go to the front of the line to come into the united states. Normally the adults parents will be to old or disabled or will have no skills to obtain a job but go straight onto welfare. That 12 million will grow into about 50 million new people coming in.

The u. s. population in Jan 1960 was 180 million people. In 2010 it was 310 million people and maybe 320 million people by now 2013. I am not so sure we should be trying to grow our population. I don't think we have the jobs, the housing, the food, the energy, the money, the welfare care for, health care for or natural resources to take care of all these people. I believe the only group not having more children is the white population. I believe all other groups of the population are increasing in numbers. If we do let more people come in, it should only be the best of the best. The baby boomer problem will take care of itself in 10 to 25 years.

Originally Posted by renecillo7:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

no, MA, i'm making fun of a group of people who want to fingerprint anyone who wants to become a US citizen.. but not fingerprint the people who wish to own a weapon!

Crash: Keep your eyes on Marco, he may just be our next president!

_________________________

 

nah, it's probably gonna be hillary and i'm ok with that!

Originally Posted by mad American:

So finger printing people who have already broken U.S laws bothers you, why? 

______________________

listen sweetness...twist it any way you wish... it just doesn't make sense to fingerprint every person trying to gain citizenship. i'm sure it'll go about like drug testing for welfare. just another waste of money!

So how do Liberals tell if a new Citizen is worth having in the country? If they register as a Democrat and then they don't need fingerprints to tell if they are a wanted Felon, been sent back to their homeland before under court order, on a wanted list for crimes commited or even ID theft..the first person that should be fingerprinted is Crash Override to see if there is a mental hospital missing an idiot.

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

So how do Liberals tell if a new Citizen is worth having in the country? If they register as a Democrat and then they don't need fingerprints to tell if they are a wanted Felon, been sent back to their homeland before under court order, on a wanted list for crimes commited or even ID theft..the first person that should be fingerprinted is Crash Override to see if there is a mental hospital missing an idiot.

_________________________

oh, i don't know, genius... how have we been determining that for the past 200 years? is this a new issue? you mean we, as a country, have never had to screen a potential citizen?

you're a little thick between the ears, aren't you?!

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

no, MA, i'm making fun of a group of people who want to fingerprint anyone who wants to become a US citizen.. but not fingerprint the people who wish to own a weapon!

Got a question for you Crash - whats the purpose of the fingerprinting people for gun ownership?  Are they going to be used (1) to run a background check or (2) to register the owner of the guns fingerprints into some database?

 

The answer is #2, because Feisteins bill lists the requirement to be fingerprinted separate from the background check.  So, tell me, what point is there in gathering fingerprints other than making a database of law abiding citizens fingerprints just based on the fact that they own a gun?  Whats the point?  Is it because they want to have the fingerprints on file in case a gun crime is ever committed?  Is there another reason to have a database of all gun owners fingerprints?

 

Whats next, Crash?  DNA profiling of all male citizens so that the DNA database can be used to catch rapists?  

 

Where do you draw the line in regards to the government over reaching into the privacy of you and I, the law abiding citizen?

Regarding the fingerprinting of illegal immigrants, I think that, should we allow them to remain in the country, they should have to follow any current laws that are in place for becoming a citizen:

 

Step 5:  Get Fingerprinted

 

http://uscitizenshiptestguide.com/text/apply.html

 

Why would we change that requirement for illegal immigrants just because they are already here?  Hopefully, the purpose of the fingerprinting is to do a complete background check on immigrants before they are allowed to be citizens.

 

And, yes, they should have to follow all the steps, including passing the test......

 

 

thanks capt., you proved my point. we've been doing fingerprinting for YEARS.
do we have a database of immigrants? have they started rounding up immigrants?
how about a class 3/c license? do they fingerprint for those? have they established a database for those? have they started rounding up people with that license? once again the "they're coming to take my guns" mentality prevails over common sense.


Originally Posted by mad American:

Crash, your point is made.  You think it is wrong to fingerprint people that have already broken our laws.  Yet it is ok to fingerprint law abiding citizen exercising their constitutional right.

________________________________

 

so, you think the US should fingerprint all citizens and future citizens?

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Yeah, just like california where the birth rate is down, more people going on the "dole", not enough paying taxes to support the ones on that dole, and more and more productive people leaving the state because they're tired of being taxed to death to pay for others. Yep, we need more working and paying taxes, too bad that can't happen since there are no jobs for way too many of the ones that would actually pay those taxes, and way too many working that don't pay taxes.

______________________________________________

 

As always Best says it best.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Good suggestion that all the people who think we should just throw open the doors and bring in the rest of the world and take care of them, be the ones that do it. Something along the lines of "adopt an illegal" maybe. Then they and they alone can be responsible, on their own with no government help, for paying for all the illegals wants and needs and leave the rest of us alone to take care of our own citizens. What good is a lifeboat on a ship if they are only going to overload it to the point of sinking it?

______________________________________________

 

Best said it best again.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Crash, your point is made.  You think it is wrong to fingerprint people that have already broken our laws.  Yet it is ok to fingerprint law abiding citizen exercising their constitutional right.

________________________________

 

so, you think the US should fingerprint all citizens and future citizens?

No just non citizens seeking citizenship as required by law!!!  But of course the illegals have become exempt of our laws and we citizens should all just learn to live with it, right?????

exactly what laws is anyone "exempt" from? exactly where did i ever suggest we didn't fingerprint immigrants? exactly what laws are the 'liberals' going to avoid for the immigrants?
when did you nutbags forget the origin of this thread and go totally nutbag? i'm more fearful of a nutbag with a gun than an illegal resident, i'm sorry that's so confusing to you people. perhaps you'll understand it this way. i think every person who owns a gun should be held responsible for any damage/death cause by that gun.. that would solve almost all the problems. but, no reason to hold you legal law abiding gun owners responsible for your own property. that would be insane!

Crash, if you are damaged by a fire arm owned by me, you had it coming.  I am sorry you feel the need to violate my rights so that more liberals are free to steal and rob.  If you are a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to fear from a legally owned fire arm.  If law abiding citizens are limited in what they can own it will only embolden criminals.

Originally Posted by mad American:

Crash, if you are damaged by a fire arm owned by me, you had it coming.  I am sorry you feel the need to violate my rights so that more liberals are free to steal and rob.  If you are a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to fear from a legally owned fire arm.  If law abiding citizens are limited in what they can own it will only embolden criminals.

_________________________

 

really, you mean a criminal isn't scared of a .357... it takes an Ak to make someone have a bad day?

Originally Posted by renecillo7:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

no, MA, i'm making fun of a group of people who want to fingerprint anyone who wants to become a US citizen.. but not fingerprint the people who wish to own a weapon!

Crash: Keep your eyes on Marco, he may just be our next president!

_____________________________________

 

marco and 21 other GOP tough guys voted against the Violence Against Women Act, today... another in a long line of GOP idiots. keep lookin!

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Got a question for you Crash - whats the purpose of the fingerprinting people for gun ownership?  Are they going to be used (1) to run a background check or (2) to register the owner of the guns fingerprints into some database?

 

The answer is #2, because Feisteins bill lists the requirement to be fingerprinted separate from the background check.  So, tell me, what point is there in gathering fingerprints other than making a database of law abiding citizens fingerprints just based on the fact that they own a gun?  Whats the point?  Is it because they want to have the fingerprints on file in case a gun crime is ever committed?  Is there another reason to have a database of all gun owners fingerprints?

 

Whats next, Crash?  DNA profiling of all male citizens so that the DNA database can be used to catch rapists?  

 

Where do you draw the line in regards to the government over reaching into the privacy of you and I, the law abiding citizen?

 

 

 

You missed it, again, Crash.  The bill that Feinstein proposed does not set out to use the fingerprints for the background check.  Its is supposed to be filed with the government after the sale (with the other supporting documentation I'm assuming on Form 4473.)

 

So, if the fingerprints are 'filed' after the sale and NOT USED IN THE BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS, what exactly is the purpose of gathering the fingerprints?  

 

When you finish answering that question (because as far as I can tell, there is only one answer), then you can tell me whether or not you approve of gathering the DNA of all citizens and creating a universal DNA database.....

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Got a question for you Crash - whats the purpose of the fingerprinting people for gun ownership?  Are they going to be used (1) to run a background check or (2) to register the owner of the guns fingerprints into some database?

 

The answer is #2, because Feisteins bill lists the requirement to be fingerprinted separate from the background check.  So, tell me, what point is there in gathering fingerprints other than making a database of law abiding citizens fingerprints just based on the fact that they own a gun?  Whats the point?  Is it because they want to have the fingerprints on file in case a gun crime is ever committed?  Is there another reason to have a database of all gun owners fingerprints?

 

Whats next, Crash?  DNA profiling of all male citizens so that the DNA database can be used to catch rapists?  

 

Where do you draw the line in regards to the government over reaching into the privacy of you and I, the law abiding citizen?

 

 

 

You missed it, again, Crash.  The bill that Feinstein proposed does not set out to use the fingerprints for the background check.  Its is supposed to be filed with the government after the sale (with the other supporting documentation I'm assuming on Form 4473.)

 

So, if the fingerprints are 'filed' after the sale and NOT USED IN THE BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS, what exactly is the purpose of gathering the fingerprints?  

 

When you finish answering that question (because as far as I can tell, there is only one answer), then you can tell me whether or not you approve of gathering the DNA of all citizens and creating a universal DNA database.....

___________________________________

 

TO MAKE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE/DEATH CAUSED BY YOUR GUN!
gathering DNA is equivalent to keeping a copy of YOU. your fingerprint is a way of making you responsible for something you CHOSE to put in the general population. if you sell it, you would have to keep a record of it. BIG difference! keep trying.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
 

TO MAKE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE/DEATH CAUSED BY YOUR GUN!
gathering DNA is equivalent to keeping a copy of YOU. your fingerprint is a way of making you responsible for something you CHOSE to put in the general population. if you sell it, you would have to keep a record of it. BIG difference! keep trying.

How does taking your fingerprints make you responsible for your gun?  That makes absolutely no sense.  

 

Show me where any of Feinsteins legislation proposal says that gun owners would even be held responsible for their weapon as part of the legislation. 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×