Reply With Quote
so who is going to pay for them to be sent back?
the feds don't FORCE they strongarm, there's a difference
so who is going to pay for them to be sent back?
*Shrug* You may be right; I'm not sure what is legally valid and what isn't.
The feds. Congress wrote the immigration laws and it's Congress's job to appropriate adequate funds to enforce their laws.
How much is adequate?
I have no idea. Definitely more than they are spending now. I have heard numbers like 275 billion thrown around as being "enough".
so when they don't, then what? It becomes a waste of time and money for AZ to mess with it.. nice job AZ
you do realize congress won't appropriate the extra funds.. right?
All Arizona is going to do is hand them over to the Feds to enforce Federal law. Of course, when the Feds tell the state they don't want them and can't afford to take them thats going to be pretty embarrassing. You realize don't you, that the majority of people in the United States (unlike this forum) are against illegal immigration?
Damn. How much are illegals costing us right now?
$275 billion?
How much will that cost Arizona?
really? because i have never really seen that at all. what i see is people opposed to SB 1070.
I assume that the people who are against illegal immigration are also against kicking families out of the country overnight. Which is what you want to do. I think it is also fair to assume that majority of the people against illegal immigration support allowing these people to come and work.
even FOX news cited a poll that indicated 50% of those polled were in favor of amnesty while just above 43% were in favor of straight out deportation.
I didn't say I was for kicking them out overnight. I'm for a very generous and easily acquired work visa program where they are registered and pay some taxes but don't get medicare, medicaid, etc. and don't vote. Kids born to them in the US are not US citizens. If you don't like that deal, then don't come over.
Of course, Obama's union buddies will never let THAT happen.
How does illegal immigration benefit unions?
It doesn't. Neither does work visas.
This is what Obama is trying to accomplish CC... why won't your side cooperate?
You have to treat people here whether they legal or not. The 14th amendment guarantees that babies born here are citiziens.
NO one that I know of is in support of granting non citizens the right to vote. In fact that is something your side made up to scare anyone who isn't paying attention.
Full amnesty = full rights including voting. Obama wants to buy a 12 million person voting block he thinks the democrats will own.
Ok, now you're making stuff up. You are as bad as the other dead enders here who make things up that they can't back up.
So your opposition is purely partisan.
No, my opposition is that I don't think illegal aliens should get full rights and benefits of citizenship.
Remember, we have ALREADY DONE amnesty once...it didn't solve the problem.
I don't have anything against legal immigration as long as it's strictly controlled and has some stringent age/literacy requirements...maybe nobody over 30 and they have to read/write basic english for starters...maybe with a 5 year probation period...get in trouble with the law and you are auto-out.
Certainly nobody over 40. They should HAVE to pay into the system for several decades before qualifying for Medicare and Social Security. Start giving 65 year old illegals amnesty and the US will turn into the Mexico retirement haven.
Define "easily acquired" please? Do you mean cheap? Less stringent requirements? Or that we should import a greater number of people per year?
Some big problems with that.
1) That very scenario was brought up when they proposed the 14th Amendment, and it still passed. To change that requirement, you'd need another Amendment.
2) The fallout of such a law. How do you determine who is a US citizen and who is not? You'd need to not only keep your OWN birth record, but those of at least one parent as well. Yay for more recordkeeping! Not to mention having to grandfather a law like that, as it would be insane to think to delegitimize the citizenship of thousands with one law.
3) The legitimacy of said definition of citizenship. For over a century now, the way citizenship is defined has stood solid. Isn't it a bit short-sighted to think to change that definition? And not slightly, but to change the very core of it, the one key item that guarantees US citizenship? If you're born in America, you're an American. I feel America is a little less American-y if we change that statement to "If you're born in America, you're an American, assuming your parents are American too."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions