Conservative views on Immigration.

Forums: Politics, Immigration, Conservativism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 6,777 • Replies: 31

[+5] - roger - 07/18/2017 [quote="D45ist "] Obama illegal alien benefit card in their hand. They eat better than I do. Of course I only get to spend my own money. [/quote] You're kidding, right?
[+3] - maxdancona - 07/18/2017First of all, this was a post from 6 years ago. Of course that doesn't change anything. The real point of the thread is that Conservatism claims to be continuing the legacy of Ronald Reagan, but it...
[+3] - tsarstepan - 10/30/2018If you watch Fox News or Breitbart, you'll likely get the notion that the waves of immigration from Central America are far more terrifying then the armies from Mordor. [img...

@maxdancona,

Not understanding your point. Illegal immigration was a small problem back then. And they didn't get 30k worth of benefits.

We have 20 MILLION illegal aliens in just the last decade and they DO get extensive benefits. .

There are a lot of illegals in my state. Go to Wal Mart at night on a weekend and there are 100s of them with heaping, overflowing carts all standing in line with their Obama illegal alien benefit card in their hand. They eat better than I do. Of course I only get to spend my own money.

My neices are all nurses. The number of illegals that give birth each day in the hospitals where they work should astound you.

I wonder if they bought mandatory Obamacare? LOL

Did you know that we are all paying teachers to go back to college for a year? A year of college for every existing teacher so they can learn to deal with SOL. I wonder what that's costing us.

This problem wasn't the same back when those questions were answered.

2 Replies

@D45ist ,

First of all, this was a post from 6 years ago. Of course that doesn't change anything. The real point of the thread is that Conservatism claims to be continuing the legacy of Ronald Reagan, but it really doesn't.

But, let me ask you this question. You have several things that suggest you don't really understand the issue. I get that you have an emotional response to seeing people in Walmart speaking Spanish without really understanding who they are.

But do facts matter to you. If you find out that the facts don't support your political point of view, will you change your mind?

If not, than any discussion on this topic will be a waste of both of our time.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

But do facts matter to you. If you find out that the facts don't support your political point of view, will you change your mind?

Max, you of all people, asking this! Major Max hypocrisy!

1 Reply

@camlok,

Your obsession with me is so sweet, Camlok. Do you have anything to add on the topic?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

These views made sense when we were only dealing with an illegal immigrant population that was on a few million. Since that time and in hopes that amnesty would happen again, the illegal immigrant population has more than tripled in and I suspect that 11 million is actually on the low end of the estimate.

There is no reason why we as a nation shouldn't be able to limit immigration into the US and also change our citizenship standards.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

That's a reasonable argument Baldimo, and I must say you are being much more rational than D45ist with his paranoid hunt for "illegals" bearing Obama benefits cards in Walmart.

I accept the fact that there are many more undocumented immigrants in the US now than there were in the time of Ronald Reagan. Whether or not Reagan would agree with you now is anyone's guess... however he does clearly argue in these videos that people who have "put down roots" should be given amnesty. Arguing over how someone who can no longer speak for himself might have changed his opinions doesn't make very much sense.

However when you say "there is no reason why we as a nation shouldn't be able to limit immigration into the US and also change our citizenship standards", you are making a very big (and probably demonstrably false) assumption that "we as a nation" want to change our citizenship standards.

If "we as a nation" (and I assume that means a majority of us as counted by the electoral system) decide that we want to give another amnesty... do "we as a nation" have the right to do this?

I am part of "we as a nation".

1 Reply

@D45ist ,

D45ist wrote:

Obama illegal alien benefit card in their hand. They eat better than I do. Of course I only get to spend my own money.

You're kidding, right?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

"we as a nation".

As Tonto says in the old joke, what do you mean "we", white man?

1 Reply

@centrox,

We as in the US. Was there some sort of govt put in place by the different Native Tribes? Nope.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Again...

The question was if "We as in the US" want to give another amnesty to undocumented immigrants, do "We as in the US" have that right? (I hope you acknowledge that people in Native Tribes are also part of "we as in the US").

My objection is to the fact that you seem to be speaking for "we as in the US", when many of us ("as in the US") support a pathway to citizenship for people here now.

You don't speak for US.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I hate lying hypocrites, Max, and you are one of the best. Of course lying and hypocrisy are genetically infused in Americans. Only the brightest are able to escape the ravages.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

There is no reason why we as a nation

The land of genocide speaks with forked tongue, always, since its inception, lying bands of genocidists, war criminals, thieves and terrorists, not to mention baby killers.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The question was if "We as in the US" want to give another amnesty to undocumented immigrants, do "We as in the US" have that right? (I hope you acknowledge that people in Native Tribes are also part of "we as in the US").

Of course they are part of "we", but when leftist bring up NA, Native Americans or "Original Peoples", they are playing a meaningless game, hence my response about historical tribes having a central govt to create and limit immigration laws. I don't play the liberal game of who the "real" citizens are.

Quote:

My objection is to the fact that you seem to be speaking for "we as in the US", when many of us ("as in the US") support a pathway to citizenship for people here now.

Do you think I'm part of the "deport them all" crowd? I'm not and I don't see a feasible way of deporting over 11 million illegal immigrants. We will have to agree to disagree on the level of "pathway to citizenship" the American people want. I think it starts with updating our birthright citizenship laws to prevent further "anchor baby" immigration. I think at least one parent should have to be a US citizen and I know you disagree with this, I think a majority of citizens would agree with this change. We already have a pathway to citizenship, we just need to improve to process and once again limit entry into the US based on what you can actually contribute to society and no social welfare benefits for at least 5 years.

Quote:

You don't speak for US.

Funny thing is, neither do you. I think the majority would agree with my views on birthright citizenship and with you on a pathway to citizenship. The only way to really figure it out is for Congress to do both. Before we make it easier to be a citizen though, we first need to better regulate legal immigration and do what we can to eliminate illegal immigration, it doesn't help the illegal immigrants or US citizens.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

I can't even begin to imagine the difficulties in amending our constitution to eliminate the most basic right in that document. Born in the USA = citizen. It doesn't get more clear or basic than that.

I'd bet on this never changing.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I think it starts with updating our birthright citizenship laws to prevent further "anchor baby" immigration. I think at least one parent should have to be a US citizen and I know you disagree with this, I think a majority of citizens would agree with this change.

You are going to lose this on this one. First of all, the issue is split about 50-50 as far as polls go. But more importantly, changing this will require a constitutional amendment (in spite of the Conservative wet dreams to the contrary, the Supreme Court has been very clear on this).

It isn't going to happen. If your side wants to spend political capital on this one, it's fine with me).

(And for the record, it was you who brought up Native American tribes).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I can't even begin to imagine the difficulties in amending our constitution to eliminate the most basic right in that document. Born in the USA = citizen. It doesn't get more clear or basic than that.

I'd bet on this never changing.

Pardon me? Liberty is the most basic right in that document... Modern day citizenship wasn't really defined until the 14th Amendment, which was drafted to make sure former slaves and future slaves were all considered US citizens.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are going to lose this on this one. First of all, the issue is split about 50-50 as far as polls go. But more importantly, changing this will require a constitutional amendment (in spite of the Conservative wet dreams to the contrary, the Supreme Court has been very clear on this).

This isn't something that is going to be changed in the next few years and you are correct, it will take a Constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship. I think it can be done, and it would bring us one step closer to a liberal dream, being more like the EU...

Quote:

It isn't going to happen. If your side wants to spend political capital on this one, it's fine with me).

It would be a long spent capital, and it doesn't only have to be done via Congress, the states themselves can move to amend the Constitution.

Quote:

(And for the record, it was you who brought up Native American tribes).

Look again sweet cheeks. Centrox was talking about Tonto and mentioned white man. Who and what do you think he meant by that?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Centrox was talking about Tonto and mentioned white man. Who and what do you think he meant by that?

The joke (which I first heard around 1960) runs like this: Tonto and the Lone Ranger are riding along when they see smoke signals to the west. "What do we do, Tonto?" says the Lone Ranger. "We go north, Kemo Sabe", says Tonto. They do, and after a bit they again see smoke signals in front. "What do we do, Tonto?" says the Lone Ranger. "We go east, Kemo Sabe", says Tonto. Same thing happens. Smoke signals to the east. "We go south, Kemo Sabe", says Tonto. They do. After a bit, guess what? Smoke signals to the south. They are surrounded. "What do we do now, Tonto?" says the Lone Ranger nervously. "What do you mean "we", white man?" replies Tonto.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

"What do you mean "we", white man?" replies Tonto.

Tonto don't say "white man." He says "paleface."

1 Reply

Conservative views on Immigration.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know