Discussing politics and religion
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
OK, they're coming to ask how far it is back to where they came from.
Nick
In Remembrance
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
......and they prance around like they're hot stuff.
......and they prance around like they're hot stuff.
Nick
In Remembrance
They're all crooks ..
Nick
In Remembrance
![MORE Luxury Vinyl Floor Cleaner for Vinyl Plank Flooring - Ready to Use, Daily Cleaning Formula for Tile, Vinyl Surfaces [Gallon / 128oz]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413LZHZiqCL._SL500_.jpg)
I'm dropping off my ballot later this morning.
Interesting how so many people have no opinion or just lazy.
http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
People think its hard to vote today? Look at 1850 to 1900. Imagine how much effort they had to put out. I bet a lot harder, you know, riding a horse 5 miles through the snow.............. uphill both ways.
http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
People think its hard to vote today? Look at 1850 to 1900. Imagine how much effort they had to put out. I bet a lot harder, you know, riding a horse 5 miles through the snow.............. uphill both ways.
Nick
In Remembrance
A lot of them had to walk..
I voted. Heres a free sticker for you ..
If the military isn't there and they just keep walking..... then what?
Sending the military is supposed to sent a message. If we don't send a message, then .......................... we are sending a message. That message being "trample all over us we don't have borders"
That kind of military expenditure cost about 2 seconds of the annual budget. The employment cost of those military personnel already exists, so deduct that from the transportation costs or just call it a military preparedness maneuver. Dust in the wind, not an expense.
The barbed wire is for those that do not want to go through the vetting process, just like the rest of the people that cross illegally.
Invasion may seem a little harsh I admit............... but so what, we got the rule of law here.
Sending the military is supposed to sent a message. If we don't send a message, then .......................... we are sending a message. That message being "trample all over us we don't have borders"
That kind of military expenditure cost about 2 seconds of the annual budget. The employment cost of those military personnel already exists, so deduct that from the transportation costs or just call it a military preparedness maneuver. Dust in the wind, not an expense.
The barbed wire is for those that do not want to go through the vetting process, just like the rest of the people that cross illegally.
Invasion may seem a little harsh I admit............... but so what, we got the rule of law here.
Nice sticker Rusty, where'd ya get it?I voted. Heres a free sticker for you ..
Nick
In Remembrance
We have Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement agencies to handle it. These are unarmed men, women, children, and infants who are on a long journey to seek asylum through legal means. They aren't violent insurgents rushing the border. They are walking at a slow pace and won't be at the border for months. So bringing the military in months before arrival is pointless. Particularly because these refugees are unlikely to have access to social media & news. They are unlikely to even know about the military waiting. Now, if there was evidence that the "caravan" was armed and they were within days of reaching the border, I *might* see justifying the military-- but the military isn't really trained to handle refugees. The Border Patrol *is* trained for it. There could be some misunderstandings with military involvement and it could turn ugly. Besides, what the refugees are doing is not illegal. The legal way to seek asylum is to come to the border and speak with officials to formally request asylum.
The talk of them being this dangerous force rushing the border is total BS meant to cause fear & incite hatred against the refugees and people who defend them. These people will probably be absolutely exhausted when they finally reach the border. I just hope that no nutjobs rise to the fearmongering and try to take matters in to their own hands (although I've heard there are groups of armed citizens who plan to go fight the refugees). The people from Guatemala are fleeing attempts at ethnic cleansing & racial persecution. Many of them were going to be killed if they didn't leave.
Editing to add the link to an article: http://time.com/5445444/american-troops-migrant-caravan-mexico-border-trump/?xid=tcoshare
Last edited:
Nick
In Remembrance
If they are all going to stand in line and apply for asylum, I don't have much of a problem with it.
How will they prove they were going to die in their home country? What if everyone coming says that? What if most of them are just poor? So are 5 billion other people.
.......what about most of them that just say they were fleeing persecution of one kind or another?
The military needs to be there as a show of force. If nothing happens, that's great. I don't personally think there gonna be anything big. If there are issues, should we just suddenly deploy some troops... spur of the moment kinda deal? That's insane. No way are there enough spare border patrol agents that we can send to one place and still have enough left at their regular locations. Not having a military presence in this situation would in my opinion be insane. If it's not needed... and it probably won't be, then that's great.
People are making a big deal about nothing. I don't know what's behind this "caravan" but no way in heck way it funds itself. I mean who buys all the new shoes? food? water? sanitation? All these things are huge considering their months of traveling.......and it's kinda funny they want to move to this hateful, racist, bigoted country that doesn't want them. How many countries did they pass along the way? Why didn't they stop or why weren't they allowed asylum in those countries?
......and they know exactly the situation they are heading into. They are not blind to the news. They may not have cell phones, but they talk to people in cities they travel through that do........ no way they are ignorant of what lies ahead. They know.
Funny how Democrats believed in border protection until a Republican was in charge.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fe...-2014-to-use-broad-power-to-limit-immigration
Obama was big on this too.
It's a media circus not a caravan anyhow. I think I can see Jim Acosta high stepping in the lead wearing a tall hat, white gloves and a waving a glitter covered baton. 76 Trombones playing in the background.
This is much ado about nothing just like the mid terms. No big deal the Dems won the house just as no big deal Trump won the presidential. Life goes on. People get their panties in a wad these days if a leaf falls from a tree a week earlier than last year. The media fans fires instead of reporting the news. Kinda sick what weinies we have become.
Last edited:
....this just in......
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-border-crossers-now-ineligible-for-asylum-white-house-says
The Trump administration announced Thursday that migrants who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally will not be eligible to claim asylum under a new rule meant to crack down on "meritless" claims.
Is that not fair? Sounds like people tha follow the legal process won't have any issues.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-border-crossers-now-ineligible-for-asylum-white-house-says
The Trump administration announced Thursday that migrants who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally will not be eligible to claim asylum under a new rule meant to crack down on "meritless" claims.
Is that not fair? Sounds like people tha follow the legal process won't have any issues.
Not caravan related, but a good level headed article.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ex-fbi-agent-president-trump-dont-say-youre-fired-to-mueller
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ex-fbi-agent-president-trump-dont-say-youre-fired-to-mueller
U.S. Birthright Citizenship explained:
What the law is... and how many people benefit from the archaic 1868 law.
President Donald Trump is trying to follow through on one of his campaign promises by ending birthright citizenship, a 150-year-old law enshrined in the Constitution that grants U.S. citizenship to anybody born on U.S. soil.
The law has been the target of anti-immigration groups for years, who claim it’s been abused by undocumented immigrants and companies that peddle “birth tourism.” But defenders say it’s been established in U.S. law, upheld by the Supreme Court.
Trump’s announcement that he will end the practice through an executive order just days before the midterm elections is sure to draw immediate legal challenges that could lead all the way to the Supreme Court. For now, here’s a look at some of the key aspects of birthright citizenship.
What is birthright citizenship?
The principle that anybody born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen.
It was added to the Constitution in 1868 in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The amendment was originally designed to grant citizenship to freed slaves following the Civil War, overriding the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the Supreme Court that had forbidden African-Americans from ever gaining citizenship and the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only conferred citizenship on free white persons "of good character."
In practice, it has become a bedrock of U.S. immigration law that has allowed anybody born in the U.S. to become citizens. Congress has passed laws extending birthright citizenship to people born in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
How many people benefit?
Citizenship was granted to about 275,000 babies born to undocumented immigrant parents in 2014 alone, representing about 7 percent of all births in the country that year, according to an analysis conducted by the non-partisan Pew Research Center.
Those numbers represented a drop from the peak years of illegal immigration, topped in 2006 when about 370,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants, or 9 percent of the population, according to the Pew estimate.
The vast majority of those births, however, were not a result of pregnant women crossing the border. Data shows that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants who give birth in the U.S. — more than 90 percent — arrived in the country more than two years before giving birth.
Those numbers do not include pregnant mothers who obtain visas to travel to the U.S. shortly before giving birth. Russians routinely fly to South Florida, and there is an entire industry in China designed to coach pregnant women on how to deal with U.S. immigration authorities so they can enter the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to American citizens.
An estimate from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes birthright citizenship and advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, puts the total number of babies born through birth tourism at about 36,000 a year.
How many countries grant it?
Trump claimed that the U.S. is the only nation in the world to grant birthright citizenship. But he ignored America’s neighbor to the north, and dozens of other countries, that also honor it.
The Center for Immigration Studies identified at least 30 nations that grant birthright citizenship. That list includes Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile.
John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in 2015 that birthright citizenship is a holdover from colonial times, when European countries granted lenient naturalization laws in order to conquest new lands. That's why the practice is almost exclusively used in the Western Hemisphere.
Good Riddance ... Your tax dollars should be spent on our national interests...not illegal immigrant children !!
What the law is... and how many people benefit from the archaic 1868 law.
President Donald Trump is trying to follow through on one of his campaign promises by ending birthright citizenship, a 150-year-old law enshrined in the Constitution that grants U.S. citizenship to anybody born on U.S. soil.
The law has been the target of anti-immigration groups for years, who claim it’s been abused by undocumented immigrants and companies that peddle “birth tourism.” But defenders say it’s been established in U.S. law, upheld by the Supreme Court.
Trump’s announcement that he will end the practice through an executive order just days before the midterm elections is sure to draw immediate legal challenges that could lead all the way to the Supreme Court. For now, here’s a look at some of the key aspects of birthright citizenship.
What is birthright citizenship?
The principle that anybody born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen.
It was added to the Constitution in 1868 in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The amendment was originally designed to grant citizenship to freed slaves following the Civil War, overriding the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the Supreme Court that had forbidden African-Americans from ever gaining citizenship and the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only conferred citizenship on free white persons "of good character."
In practice, it has become a bedrock of U.S. immigration law that has allowed anybody born in the U.S. to become citizens. Congress has passed laws extending birthright citizenship to people born in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
How many people benefit?
Citizenship was granted to about 275,000 babies born to undocumented immigrant parents in 2014 alone, representing about 7 percent of all births in the country that year, according to an analysis conducted by the non-partisan Pew Research Center.
Those numbers represented a drop from the peak years of illegal immigration, topped in 2006 when about 370,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants, or 9 percent of the population, according to the Pew estimate.
The vast majority of those births, however, were not a result of pregnant women crossing the border. Data shows that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants who give birth in the U.S. — more than 90 percent — arrived in the country more than two years before giving birth.
Those numbers do not include pregnant mothers who obtain visas to travel to the U.S. shortly before giving birth. Russians routinely fly to South Florida, and there is an entire industry in China designed to coach pregnant women on how to deal with U.S. immigration authorities so they can enter the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to American citizens.
An estimate from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes birthright citizenship and advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, puts the total number of babies born through birth tourism at about 36,000 a year.
How many countries grant it?
Trump claimed that the U.S. is the only nation in the world to grant birthright citizenship. But he ignored America’s neighbor to the north, and dozens of other countries, that also honor it.
The Center for Immigration Studies identified at least 30 nations that grant birthright citizenship. That list includes Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile.
John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in 2015 that birthright citizenship is a holdover from colonial times, when European countries granted lenient naturalization laws in order to conquest new lands. That's why the practice is almost exclusively used in the Western Hemisphere.
Good Riddance ... Your tax dollars should be spent on our national interests...not illegal immigrant children !!
Our CIA set up many of those governments. If they elected leaders, we would just topple them again.
