Clearly staged to put a human Clearly staged to put a human face on the issue and build support for the coming amnesty.
briansd1
May 21, 2010 @
11:18 AM
cdesilva44 wrote:Clearly [quote=cdesilva44]Clearly staged to put a human face on the issue and build support for the coming amnesty.[/quote]
I don’t think that it was staged.
But I do think that amnesty is coming. It’s going to take some time (years) for an amnesty law (which won’t be called amnesty) to get passed. So if I were illegal, I wouldn’t hold my breath, but I would be very patient.
The population numbers are overwhelming and unauthorized immigrants’ contribution to GDP is too great to ignore.
What people fail to understand is that the Hispanic legal and unauthorized populations are closely intertwined.
Tracked down, no, but Tracked down, no, but deported if she is caught. And Brian, the term is ILLEGAL immigrant. They have entered the country ILLEGALLY. Quit trying to sugar coat it.
Having said that, I will reiterate my opinion that the immigration process for Mexicans is entirely too difficult. I still feel like they should be able to register who they are, obtain identification, gain employment, and pay their taxes. It should be that simple.
ocrenter
May 21, 2010 @
12:44 PM
very interesting how this was very interesting how this was phrased.
ALL illegal immigrants are here illegally.
MOST illegal immigrants are dads and moms.
Are we saying as long as illegal immigrants have children, they are somewhat less illegal?
jimmyle
May 21, 2010 @
12:53 PM
I also think it was staged. I also think it was staged. How many parents are telling their young children that they are illegals? The mom is betting that Obama won’t deport her. She is trying to be a hero for the illegals. I don’t see Obama risking the Hispanic votes.
briansd1
May 21, 2010 @
4:02 PM
jimmyle wrote:I also think it [quote=jimmyle]I also think it was staged. How many parents are telling their young children that they are illegals? The mom is betting that Obama won’t deport her. She is trying to be a hero for the illegals. I don’t see Obama risking the Hispanic votes.[/quote]
I don’t think it was staged because they wouldn’t know in advance which children would get to meet with Michelle Obama.
[quote=AN]Wow, 80% vote yes.[/quote]
80% are heartless and would want to send mom back to her home country.
Who would take care of that little American girl?
ocrenter
May 21, 2010 @
4:39 PM
AN wrote:Wow, 80% vote [quote=AN]Wow, 80% vote yes.[/quote]
80% are heartless and would want to send mom back to her home country.
Who would take care of that little American girl?[/quote]
the mom would take care of that little girl at her home country. chances are that little girl has automatic citizenship from the country of her parents until she turns 18. If the mom decide to leave the girl in a foreign land all by herself that would be truly heartless.
it is surveys like this one and irrelevant calls of “heartless” vs “compassion” that give the left a bad name.
Arraya
May 21, 2010 @
4:05 PM
If you think they would let If you think they would let unscreened questions in a setting like that you’re out of your mind. The probability of that not being staged, because it is in the white house, is about 0%. No need to fret because of a little political theatrics. It’s the nature of the beast.
[img_assist|nid=13328|title=.|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=340|height=383]
LAAFTERHOURS
May 21, 2010 @
2:26 PM
mike92104 wrote:
Having said [quote=mike92104]
Having said that, I will reiterate my opinion that the immigration process for Mexicans is entirely too difficult. I still feel like they should be able to register who they are, obtain identification, gain employment, and pay their taxes. It should be that simple.[/quote]
The illegals and workers still use other people’s ssn’s, names etc.
How about we start microchipping them like we do with our dogs?
Wickedheart
May 21, 2010 @
11:37 PM
Would you like to know how Would you like to know how Mexican federales treat South American migrants, Brian? They beat them, rob them and kill them. There is nothing wrong with the Arizona law. Mexican laws are far worse.
Veritas
May 22, 2010 @
12:20 AM
Exactly right, Wicked, but Exactly right, Wicked, but Brian has guilt and likes to spend your tax dollars on the undeserving while homeless veterans sleep on the street in San Diego on any given night. In stark contrast illegal aliens are fed and housed by U.S. taxpayers even though they have contributed nothing to this country and may despise its culture and traditions. Brian’s attitude and inherent stupidity will destroy this country if left to continue on its present course. Our immigration laws must be enforced.
blahblahblah
May 22, 2010 @
7:38 AM
I am still waiting for Brian I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.
briansd1
May 22, 2010 @
8:55 AM
CONCHO wrote:I am still [quote=CONCHO]I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.[/quote]
Concho, I’m not representing anyone or any organization on Piggington.
I’m here because I’m personally interested in real estate and other important and related economic and political issues.
Allan from Fallbrook
May 22, 2010 @
6:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:CONCHO wrote:I [quote=briansd1][quote=CONCHO]I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.[/quote]
Concho, I’m not representing anyone or any organization on Piggington.
I’m here because I’m personally interested in real estate and other important and related economic and political issues.[/quote]
Brian: If there were such an organization paying you for such “services”, you’d return their money, correct? I mean, in good conscience, you’d have to.
A more serious question would be: Are you able to see your own prejudices and bigotry, or do you genuinely believe some of the nonsense you post?
I’m curious, because you’re either trying to generate a response by using polemic and rhetoric, or you really are that biased and ignorant. I’d prefer to believe the former, but, as of late, some of your comments and responses have me wondering.
UCGal
May 22, 2010 @
7:51 AM
I don’t think it was staged. I don’t think it was staged. In fact I’d bet the mom is looking around really fast to change address, etc now that her daughter inadvertantly exposed her illegal status.
The term anchor baby always annoys me. It’s largely a myth. They deport the illegal immigrant parents of children born in US regularly. The family can either find someone else to raise their citizen child here in the US or take their child with them. As mentioned, it’s like the child has dual citizenship – US by jure solis, Mexican citizenship by jure sanguinis. The child isn’t forced to leave – but the parents are.
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
blahblahblah
May 21, 2010 @
1:31 PM
Brian, who is paying you to Brian, who is paying you to do these polls? Which think tank/PR firm do you work for?
LA Reader
May 21, 2010 @
2:36 PM
If it was staged, it wouldn’t If it was staged, it wouldn’t have been by White House. This is a political mine field.
Any case, I don’t think we can fix the immigration problem with arresting & deporting illegals. If we really want to fix this problem, we need to choke off the supply of what they come here for..Jobs. Last year we actually had decline in number of Illegal immigrants, why? because there were no jobs.
Instead of hiring more border guards, hire more people to bust businesses that employs illegals. Make the penalty for hiring illegals so high that it won’t be worth it for them to hire illegals. Make hiring illegals felonies that officer of corporations are personally responsible for. Make the fine for hiring illegals for housekeepers, nannies, gardeners extremely high like $10k per offense. This would help revenue in cities like LA & San Diego. Make it so that you have to pay the fine even if you didn’t know they were illegal.
This would help with our unemployment problem and immigration problem. Arresting illegals one by one and sending them back is like trying to stop a flow of a river with your bare hands. We are never going to deport them fast enough to out-pace the in flow. Pure waste of time and money.
an
May 21, 2010 @
3:41 PM
Wow, 80% vote yes. Wow, 80% vote yes.
no_such_reality
May 21, 2010 @
8:04 PM
Hmm, I wonder if mom makes Hmm, I wonder if mom makes enough to pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of our educating her daughter in our public school system.
Hmm, 2nd question, I wonder if the girl is a citizen or is the girl ‘doesn’t have papers’ too?
Hmm, 3rd question, if the girl is a citizen and mom ‘doesn’t have papers’, I wonder if the girl is an ‘anchor baby’?
Hmm, 4th question, I wonder if mom is really a citizen and it’s all just a set up?
Hmm, 5th question, if the girl is an anchor baby, I wonder who paid the hospital bills for the birth assuming it was in a US hospital since *if* mom ‘doesn’t have papers’ then the hypothetical scenario is mom is an illegal alien having an anchor baby.
Hmmm, 6th question, I wonder if the media will ask the hard questions, like how much has ‘doesn’t have papers Mom and daughter’ cost the US taxpayer base and how much they’ve contributed to it.
Hmm, last question, and while the media is at it, ask the really hard question, who is employing Miss ‘Doesn’t have papers’ and why has that been allowed to occur for years?
In the end, all we have to do is solve that last question. The first six are just to piss everybody off.
PCinSD
May 21, 2010 @
8:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:
In the [quote=no_such_reality]
In the end, all we have to do is solve that last question. The first six are just to piss everybody off.[/quote]
And . . . there went a small amount of Chardonnay out my nose. Good stuff.
briansd1
May 22, 2010 @
8:57 AM
Conservatives should know Conservatives should know that a baby is a gift from God. People don’t plan to have “anchor babies.” Babies are born out of love between a man and woman.
And since God blesses America everyday, babies born in America are best raised, right here, in our blessed country.
God created the child in America for a reason.
*
It could be that the father of the girl is a citizen but the mom is not. The mom may not be able to adjust her status because of an overstay.
[quote=UCGal]
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young.
You are correct UCGal, most of the time, an overstay of 1 year or less results in a 3-year ban and an overstay of 1 year or more results in a 10-year ban, regardless of marriage or family sponsorship.
Coronita
May 22, 2010 @
10:07 AM
briansd1 wrote:Conservatives [quote=briansd1]Conservatives should know that a baby is a gift from God. People don’t plan to have “anchor babies.” Babies are born out of love between a man and woman.
And since God blesses America everyday, babies born in America are best raised, right here, in our blessed country.
God created the child in America for a reason.
*
It could be that the father of the girl is a citizen but the mom is not. The mom may not be able to adjust her status because of an overstay.
[quote=UCGal]
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young.
You are correct UCGal, most of the time, an overstay of 1 year or less results in a 3-year ban and an overstay of 1 year or more results in a 10-year ban, regardless of marriage or family sponsorship.[/quote]
Wow, Brian….I thought you were atheist. Why do you speak of thou subject without thou knowing about thy Creator? Seems to me you’re sounding thou… preachy..Like Newt G.
bubba99
May 24, 2010 @
3:35 PM
Moving back on subject, there Moving back on subject, there is no point in going after any single non-felon illegal! Right now we at CBP and ICE are going after the violent offenders (including multiple DUI’s) But the numbers are really small by comparison to the problem.
We may get a hundred thousand people in any given year, maybe two hundred thousand as we gear up, We admitt to 12 million illegals, and the real number is probably closer to 20 million. Do the math. At the current rate, it will take a hundred years to get them all. Targeting “little girls mother” just does not make sense while we have a rapist who was deported 9 times under arrest for another rape.
The problem is too big.
briansd1
May 24, 2010 @
4:14 PM
bubba99 wrote:We admitt to 12 [quote=bubba99]We admitt to 12 million illegals, and the real number is probably closer to 20 million. Do the math. At the current rate, it will take a hundred years to get them all. Targeting “little girls mother” just does not make sense while we have a rapist who was deported 9 times under arrest for another rape.
The problem is too big.[/quote]
You are right on.
It used to be that unauthorized immigrants could adjust to legal status through marriage and family sponsorship, after years of living underground. However, they are now forced to remain underground because of the 10-year ban requirement.
You are right, the math is overwhelming. It can only be solved with a legislated path to legalization.
CDMA ENG
May 22, 2010 @
2:53 PM
I am begining to think that I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE
Allan from Fallbrook
May 22, 2010 @
6:51 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:I am begining [quote=CDMA ENG]I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE[/quote]
CE: Can’t be. Brian doesn’t like fat chicks, remember? Oh, wait. He tolerates fat chicks, but only if they’re smart or somehow delivering value to society.
Hmmm. Is Sally Struthers smart? Is she delivering value to society?
briansd1
May 22, 2010 @
10:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CDMA ENG]I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE[/quote]
CE: Can’t be. Brian doesn’t like fat chicks, remember? Oh, wait. He tolerates fat chicks, but only if they’re smart or somehow delivering value to society.
Hmmm. Is Sally Struthers smart? Is she delivering value to society?[/quote]
Allan, to me fat women are like everyone else. They have the right to live and prosper like everyone else.
I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
I wouldn’t date a fat woman, just like some women would not date short and bald men. That’s just a personal preference. For one, our eating habits would not be compatible.
*
Another thing, Allan, what exactly did I say on this thread that was nonsensical?
blahblahblah
May 23, 2010 @
7:58 AM
I respect wise Latina and I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
What about black ladies? Or white ladies? Eskimo ladies? Australian Aborigine ladies? Mightn’t a few of them be wise as well?
Brian seems to be a collectivist, one who believes that skin color or ethnicity automatically attribute a person certain characteristics.
briansd1
May 23, 2010 @
10:23 AM
CONCHO wrote:I respect wise [quote=CONCHO]I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
What about black ladies? Or white ladies? Eskimo ladies? Australian Aborigine ladies? Mightn’t a few of them be wise as well?
Brian seems to be a collectivist, one who believes that skin color or ethnicity automatically attribute a person certain characteristics.[/quote]
Concho, I mentioned the wise Latina and Jewiwh women in particular because they have been in the news. Do I need to enumerate all the possible combination of fat women?
I don’t believe that skin color or ethnicity mean much all alone. Life experience is what shapes people.
I believe that the years from teenage to 30 years of age affect people most. If you grow up in a big city like NYC, your life experience will be different from growing up in Carmel Valley and attending UC Santa Barbara, then moving back to Carmel Valley.
BTW, I also think that fat women have different experiences than thin women — experiences that shape their understanding of the world and outlook on life.
Allan from Fallbrook
May 23, 2010 @
1:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Another [quote=briansd1]
Another thing, Allan, what exactly did I say on this thread that was nonsensical?[/quote]
Gee, Brian, why limit ourselves to just this thread?
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? Either you lack the requisite reasoning capability to separate the two, or you genuinely believe it. So, you’re either ignorant or indoctrinated.
Which is it?
Veritas
May 24, 2010 @
10:55 AM
Inquiring minds want to know, Inquiring minds want to know, Brian. Are you ignorant or indoctrinated.
Coronita
May 24, 2010 @
11:16 AM
Wow. And I didn’t even vote Wow. And I didn’t even vote my 5 block votes in yet.
briansd1
May 24, 2010 @
12:53 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? [/quote]
Evangelicals are conservatives aren’t they?
Let me pose a question in return. Does liberal necessarily mean tax and spend in the mind a conservative?
Allan from Fallbrook
May 24, 2010 @
2:33 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from [quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? [/quote]
Evangelicals are conservatives aren’t they?
Let me pose a question in return. Does liberal necessarily mean tax and spend in the mind a conservative?[/quote]
Nope. There are different kinds of liberals, just as there are different kinds of conservatives. You’re turning the argument on its head, however, and asserting that ALL conservatives ARE evangelicals, because (in your mind) ALL evangelicals ARE conservatives.
To wit: ALL marbles ARE round, but everything round is NOT a marble. See the difference?
flu, sounds like the 1200 flu, sounds like the 1200 additional troops could be a result of the summit with Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico.
The assault weapons flowing from the US to Mexico are what is causing death and destruction along the border.
Obama Said to Plan 1,200 National Guard Troops for Border
By Julianna Goldman
May 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will deploy as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to aid counternarcotics enforcement and provide intelligence and other forms of support, according to an administration official.
As part of the effort to stem the flow of drugs and weapons between the U.S. and Mexico, Obama will also ask Congress for $500 million in additional funds for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities, according to the official, who asked not to be identified.
To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 25, 2010 14:57 EDT
Aecetia
May 25, 2010 @
4:10 PM
Brian you are so naive. You Brian you are so naive. You think all evil comes from the U.S. You also believe everything you read in the liberal press. When are you going to wake up? Some of the assault weapons come from deserting Mexican military who are paid better by the drug lords than the Mexican government.
Try reading this and learning and if you read well, then you will understand the difference between traceable and non-traceable. Good luck.
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
By William La Jeunesse & Maxim Lott
“While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.”
If 1/3 of the guns seized in If 1/3 of the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, that’s still too many.
Fox News has put the percentage of guns that have been traced to U.S. sources at only 17 percent, but we find that to be based on a mistaken assumption that throws its figure way off. We can’t offer a precise calculation because we know of no hard information on the total number of guns Mexican officials have recovered. But if a rough figure given by Mexico’s attorney general is accurate, then the actual percentage of all Mexican crime guns that have been traced to U.S. sources is more than double what Fox News has reported.
One former senior U.S. narcotics and law enforcement official called the decision not to reinstate the ban disgraceful.
“There’s no question at all that a tremendous amount of violence in Mexico and Central America is fueled by the export of guns by the United States,” the former senior told POLITICO on condition of anonymity.
“The law enforcement authorities in the U.S. are first not making much of an effort to try to stop it,” he continued. “But the reason they are not is they are hampered enormously by the lack of federal regulations and by state and local laws. And so there are gun dealers who are just sending [these weapons] almost by the truck load into Mexico and that is also getting to gangs in Central America.” http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0510/Calderon_presses_Congress_on_assault_weapons.html
Aecetia
May 26, 2010 @
1:08 PM
Not a math guy either, eh? Not a math guy either, eh?
stockstradr
May 26, 2010 @
1:13 PM
The First Lady meets with a The First Lady meets with a lovely little girl, innocent victim face, who just coincidentally would be negatively affected if conservative changes were made to immigration policy. The girl just coincidentally asks a very rehearsed sounding political question about her parent “lacking papers” and worried she’s gonna lose her mommy due to deportation. It was just coincidence that this looked like a perfectly timed PR event to draw emotional support behind President Obama’s opposition to proposals to deport illegals
Also just a coincidence that Obama administration officials, ahead of the event, had the girl’s (illegal immigrant) parent “…signed a release allowing the child to participate and be filmed.”
I love those on this forum who explained to us that this event was not staged in any way. You also believe Santa lives with elves at the pole? You also believe BP’s “little oil leak” only leaking out a few thousand gallons per day?
I hope those (who think this wasn’t staged) are all trading stocks today, because just a few of you trading could lower the worldwide “grade curve” (intellectually and competence-wise) of the traders I’m competing with in trading stocks. (Help make the sheep easy to sheer.)
🙂
Aecetia
May 26, 2010 @
1:15 PM
Where is the picture of the Where is the picture of the unicorn again?
May 21, 2010 @ 9:49 AM
Interesting story on a little
Interesting story on a little American girl whose mom is illegal. The girl met and had an exchange with Michelle Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052004318.html?hpid=artslot
May 21, 2010 @ 9:57 AM
Clearly staged to put a human
Clearly staged to put a human face on the issue and build support for the coming amnesty.
May 21, 2010 @ 11:18 AM
cdesilva44 wrote:Clearly
[quote=cdesilva44]Clearly staged to put a human face on the issue and build support for the coming amnesty.[/quote]
I don’t think that it was staged.
But I do think that amnesty is coming. It’s going to take some time (years) for an amnesty law (which won’t be called amnesty) to get passed. So if I were illegal, I wouldn’t hold my breath, but I would be very patient.
The population numbers are overwhelming and unauthorized immigrants’ contribution to GDP is too great to ignore.
What people fail to understand is that the Hispanic legal and unauthorized populations are closely intertwined.
Latino Businesses Flourish in Detroit
May 21, 2010 @ 12:20 PM
Tracked down, no, but
Tracked down, no, but deported if she is caught. And Brian, the term is ILLEGAL immigrant. They have entered the country ILLEGALLY. Quit trying to sugar coat it.
Having said that, I will reiterate my opinion that the immigration process for Mexicans is entirely too difficult. I still feel like they should be able to register who they are, obtain identification, gain employment, and pay their taxes. It should be that simple.
May 21, 2010 @ 12:44 PM
very interesting how this was
very interesting how this was phrased.
ALL illegal immigrants are here illegally.
MOST illegal immigrants are dads and moms.
Are we saying as long as illegal immigrants have children, they are somewhat less illegal?
May 21, 2010 @ 12:53 PM
I also think it was staged.
I also think it was staged. How many parents are telling their young children that they are illegals? The mom is betting that Obama won’t deport her. She is trying to be a hero for the illegals. I don’t see Obama risking the Hispanic votes.
May 21, 2010 @ 4:02 PM
jimmyle wrote:I also think it
[quote=jimmyle]I also think it was staged. How many parents are telling their young children that they are illegals? The mom is betting that Obama won’t deport her. She is trying to be a hero for the illegals. I don’t see Obama risking the Hispanic votes.[/quote]
I don’t think it was staged because they wouldn’t know in advance which children would get to meet with Michelle Obama.
[quote=AN]Wow, 80% vote yes.[/quote]
80% are heartless and would want to send mom back to her home country.
Who would take care of that little American girl?
May 21, 2010 @ 4:39 PM
AN wrote:Wow, 80% vote
[quote=AN]Wow, 80% vote yes.[/quote]
80% are heartless and would want to send mom back to her home country.
Who would take care of that little American girl?[/quote]
the mom would take care of that little girl at her home country. chances are that little girl has automatic citizenship from the country of her parents until she turns 18. If the mom decide to leave the girl in a foreign land all by herself that would be truly heartless.
it is surveys like this one and irrelevant calls of “heartless” vs “compassion” that give the left a bad name.
May 21, 2010 @ 4:05 PM
If you think they would let
If you think they would let unscreened questions in a setting like that you’re out of your mind. The probability of that not being staged, because it is in the white house, is about 0%. No need to fret because of a little political theatrics. It’s the nature of the beast.
[img_assist|nid=13328|title=.|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=340|height=383]
May 21, 2010 @ 2:26 PM
mike92104 wrote:
Having said
[quote=mike92104]
Having said that, I will reiterate my opinion that the immigration process for Mexicans is entirely too difficult. I still feel like they should be able to register who they are, obtain identification, gain employment, and pay their taxes. It should be that simple.[/quote]
The illegals and workers still use other people’s ssn’s, names etc.
How about we start microchipping them like we do with our dogs?
May 21, 2010 @ 11:37 PM
Would you like to know how
Would you like to know how Mexican federales treat South American migrants, Brian? They beat them, rob them and kill them. There is nothing wrong with the Arizona law. Mexican laws are far worse.
May 22, 2010 @ 12:20 AM
Exactly right, Wicked, but
Exactly right, Wicked, but Brian has guilt and likes to spend your tax dollars on the undeserving while homeless veterans sleep on the street in San Diego on any given night. In stark contrast illegal aliens are fed and housed by U.S. taxpayers even though they have contributed nothing to this country and may despise its culture and traditions. Brian’s attitude and inherent stupidity will destroy this country if left to continue on its present course. Our immigration laws must be enforced.
May 22, 2010 @ 7:38 AM
I am still waiting for Brian
I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.
May 22, 2010 @ 8:55 AM
CONCHO wrote:I am still
[quote=CONCHO]I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.[/quote]
Concho, I’m not representing anyone or any organization on Piggington.
I’m here because I’m personally interested in real estate and other important and related economic and political issues.
May 22, 2010 @ 6:49 PM
briansd1 wrote:CONCHO wrote:I
[quote=briansd1][quote=CONCHO]I am still waiting for Brian to tell us who pays him to do these polls. Note that he has chimed in on this thread after my question but didn’t answer. He is very likely a think tank/PR firm hack whose job is to measure and if possible influence public opinion.[/quote]
Concho, I’m not representing anyone or any organization on Piggington.
I’m here because I’m personally interested in real estate and other important and related economic and political issues.[/quote]
Brian: If there were such an organization paying you for such “services”, you’d return their money, correct? I mean, in good conscience, you’d have to.
A more serious question would be: Are you able to see your own prejudices and bigotry, or do you genuinely believe some of the nonsense you post?
I’m curious, because you’re either trying to generate a response by using polemic and rhetoric, or you really are that biased and ignorant. I’d prefer to believe the former, but, as of late, some of your comments and responses have me wondering.
May 22, 2010 @ 7:51 AM
I don’t think it was staged.
I don’t think it was staged. In fact I’d bet the mom is looking around really fast to change address, etc now that her daughter inadvertantly exposed her illegal status.
The term anchor baby always annoys me. It’s largely a myth. They deport the illegal immigrant parents of children born in US regularly. The family can either find someone else to raise their citizen child here in the US or take their child with them. As mentioned, it’s like the child has dual citizenship – US by jure solis, Mexican citizenship by jure sanguinis. The child isn’t forced to leave – but the parents are.
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
May 21, 2010 @ 1:31 PM
Brian, who is paying you to
Brian, who is paying you to do these polls? Which think tank/PR firm do you work for?
May 21, 2010 @ 2:36 PM
If it was staged, it wouldn’t
If it was staged, it wouldn’t have been by White House. This is a political mine field.
Any case, I don’t think we can fix the immigration problem with arresting & deporting illegals. If we really want to fix this problem, we need to choke off the supply of what they come here for..Jobs. Last year we actually had decline in number of Illegal immigrants, why? because there were no jobs.
Instead of hiring more border guards, hire more people to bust businesses that employs illegals. Make the penalty for hiring illegals so high that it won’t be worth it for them to hire illegals. Make hiring illegals felonies that officer of corporations are personally responsible for. Make the fine for hiring illegals for housekeepers, nannies, gardeners extremely high like $10k per offense. This would help revenue in cities like LA & San Diego. Make it so that you have to pay the fine even if you didn’t know they were illegal.
This would help with our unemployment problem and immigration problem. Arresting illegals one by one and sending them back is like trying to stop a flow of a river with your bare hands. We are never going to deport them fast enough to out-pace the in flow. Pure waste of time and money.
May 21, 2010 @ 3:41 PM
Wow, 80% vote yes.
Wow, 80% vote yes.
May 21, 2010 @ 8:04 PM
Hmm, I wonder if mom makes
Hmm, I wonder if mom makes enough to pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of our educating her daughter in our public school system.
Hmm, 2nd question, I wonder if the girl is a citizen or is the girl ‘doesn’t have papers’ too?
Hmm, 3rd question, if the girl is a citizen and mom ‘doesn’t have papers’, I wonder if the girl is an ‘anchor baby’?
Hmm, 4th question, I wonder if mom is really a citizen and it’s all just a set up?
Hmm, 5th question, if the girl is an anchor baby, I wonder who paid the hospital bills for the birth assuming it was in a US hospital since *if* mom ‘doesn’t have papers’ then the hypothetical scenario is mom is an illegal alien having an anchor baby.
Hmmm, 6th question, I wonder if the media will ask the hard questions, like how much has ‘doesn’t have papers Mom and daughter’ cost the US taxpayer base and how much they’ve contributed to it.
Hmm, last question, and while the media is at it, ask the really hard question, who is employing Miss ‘Doesn’t have papers’ and why has that been allowed to occur for years?
In the end, all we have to do is solve that last question. The first six are just to piss everybody off.
May 21, 2010 @ 8:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:
In the
[quote=no_such_reality]
In the end, all we have to do is solve that last question. The first six are just to piss everybody off.[/quote]
And . . . there went a small amount of Chardonnay out my nose. Good stuff.
May 22, 2010 @ 8:57 AM
Conservatives should know
Conservatives should know that a baby is a gift from God. People don’t plan to have “anchor babies.” Babies are born out of love between a man and woman.
And since God blesses America everyday, babies born in America are best raised, right here, in our blessed country.
God created the child in America for a reason.
*
It could be that the father of the girl is a citizen but the mom is not. The mom may not be able to adjust her status because of an overstay.
Here is an example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/08soldier.html?scp=2&sq=immigrant%20military&st=cse
[quote=UCGal]
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
[/quote]
You are correct UCGal, most of the time, an overstay of 1 year or less results in a 3-year ban and an overstay of 1 year or more results in a 10-year ban, regardless of marriage or family sponsorship.
May 22, 2010 @ 10:07 AM
briansd1 wrote:Conservatives
[quote=briansd1]Conservatives should know that a baby is a gift from God. People don’t plan to have “anchor babies.” Babies are born out of love between a man and woman.
And since God blesses America everyday, babies born in America are best raised, right here, in our blessed country.
God created the child in America for a reason.
*
It could be that the father of the girl is a citizen but the mom is not. The mom may not be able to adjust her status because of an overstay.
Here is an example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/08soldier.html?scp=2&sq=immigrant%20military&st=cse
[quote=UCGal]
The child can’t sponsor their parents for legal US immigrant status till age 18… And at that point the application would be in the same legal queue… In other words the parents would be waiting in line.
This article has an example – a 14 year old girl who is legal, and stayed, when her mom and older brothers were deported. Her younger sister (also legal) went with her mom because she was so young.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
[/quote]
You are correct UCGal, most of the time, an overstay of 1 year or less results in a 3-year ban and an overstay of 1 year or more results in a 10-year ban, regardless of marriage or family sponsorship.[/quote]
Wow, Brian….I thought you were atheist. Why do you speak of thou subject without thou knowing about thy Creator? Seems to me you’re sounding thou… preachy..Like Newt G.
May 24, 2010 @ 3:35 PM
Moving back on subject, there
Moving back on subject, there is no point in going after any single non-felon illegal! Right now we at CBP and ICE are going after the violent offenders (including multiple DUI’s) But the numbers are really small by comparison to the problem.
We may get a hundred thousand people in any given year, maybe two hundred thousand as we gear up, We admitt to 12 million illegals, and the real number is probably closer to 20 million. Do the math. At the current rate, it will take a hundred years to get them all. Targeting “little girls mother” just does not make sense while we have a rapist who was deported 9 times under arrest for another rape.
The problem is too big.
May 24, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
bubba99 wrote:We admitt to 12
[quote=bubba99]We admitt to 12 million illegals, and the real number is probably closer to 20 million. Do the math. At the current rate, it will take a hundred years to get them all. Targeting “little girls mother” just does not make sense while we have a rapist who was deported 9 times under arrest for another rape.
The problem is too big.[/quote]
You are right on.
It used to be that unauthorized immigrants could adjust to legal status through marriage and family sponsorship, after years of living underground. However, they are now forced to remain underground because of the 10-year ban requirement.
You are right, the math is overwhelming. It can only be solved with a legislated path to legalization.
May 22, 2010 @ 2:53 PM
I am begining to think that
I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE
May 22, 2010 @ 6:51 PM
CDMA ENG wrote:I am begining
[quote=CDMA ENG]I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE[/quote]
CE: Can’t be. Brian doesn’t like fat chicks, remember? Oh, wait. He tolerates fat chicks, but only if they’re smart or somehow delivering value to society.
Hmmm. Is Sally Struthers smart? Is she delivering value to society?
May 22, 2010 @ 10:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CDMA ENG]I am begining to think that Sally Struthers and Brian are the same person…
CE[/quote]
CE: Can’t be. Brian doesn’t like fat chicks, remember? Oh, wait. He tolerates fat chicks, but only if they’re smart or somehow delivering value to society.
Hmmm. Is Sally Struthers smart? Is she delivering value to society?[/quote]
Allan, to me fat women are like everyone else. They have the right to live and prosper like everyone else.
I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
I wouldn’t date a fat woman, just like some women would not date short and bald men. That’s just a personal preference. For one, our eating habits would not be compatible.
*
Another thing, Allan, what exactly did I say on this thread that was nonsensical?
May 23, 2010 @ 7:58 AM
I respect wise Latina and
I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
What about black ladies? Or white ladies? Eskimo ladies? Australian Aborigine ladies? Mightn’t a few of them be wise as well?
Brian seems to be a collectivist, one who believes that skin color or ethnicity automatically attribute a person certain characteristics.
May 23, 2010 @ 10:23 AM
CONCHO wrote:I respect wise
[quote=CONCHO]I respect wise Latina and wise Jewish fat women.
What about black ladies? Or white ladies? Eskimo ladies? Australian Aborigine ladies? Mightn’t a few of them be wise as well?
Brian seems to be a collectivist, one who believes that skin color or ethnicity automatically attribute a person certain characteristics.[/quote]
Concho, I mentioned the wise Latina and Jewiwh women in particular because they have been in the news. Do I need to enumerate all the possible combination of fat women?
I don’t believe that skin color or ethnicity mean much all alone. Life experience is what shapes people.
I believe that the years from teenage to 30 years of age affect people most. If you grow up in a big city like NYC, your life experience will be different from growing up in Carmel Valley and attending UC Santa Barbara, then moving back to Carmel Valley.
BTW, I also think that fat women have different experiences than thin women — experiences that shape their understanding of the world and outlook on life.
May 23, 2010 @ 1:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Another
[quote=briansd1]
Another thing, Allan, what exactly did I say on this thread that was nonsensical?[/quote]
Gee, Brian, why limit ourselves to just this thread?
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? Either you lack the requisite reasoning capability to separate the two, or you genuinely believe it. So, you’re either ignorant or indoctrinated.
Which is it?
May 24, 2010 @ 10:55 AM
Inquiring minds want to know,
Inquiring minds want to know, Brian. Are you ignorant or indoctrinated.
May 24, 2010 @ 11:16 AM
Wow. And I didn’t even vote
Wow. And I didn’t even vote my 5 block votes in yet.
May 24, 2010 @ 12:53 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? [/quote]
Evangelicals are conservatives aren’t they?
Let me pose a question in return. Does liberal necessarily mean tax and spend in the mind a conservative?
May 24, 2010 @ 2:33 PM
briansd1 wrote:Allan from
[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
More seriously, how about your constant conflation of conservatives and evangelicals? [/quote]
Evangelicals are conservatives aren’t they?
Let me pose a question in return. Does liberal necessarily mean tax and spend in the mind a conservative?[/quote]
Nope. There are different kinds of liberals, just as there are different kinds of conservatives. You’re turning the argument on its head, however, and asserting that ALL conservatives ARE evangelicals, because (in your mind) ALL evangelicals ARE conservatives.
To wit: ALL marbles ARE round, but everything round is NOT a marble. See the difference?
May 25, 2010 @ 12:42 PM
LOL…
http://www.bloomberg.c
LOL…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBpSwSrjHZIg&pos=9
May 25, 2010 @ 12:59 PM
flu, sounds like the 1200
flu, sounds like the 1200 additional troops could be a result of the summit with Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico.
The assault weapons flowing from the US to Mexico are what is causing death and destruction along the border.
May 25, 2010 @ 4:10 PM
Brian you are so naive. You
Brian you are so naive. You think all evil comes from the U.S. You also believe everything you read in the liberal press. When are you going to wake up? Some of the assault weapons come from deserting Mexican military who are paid better by the drug lords than the Mexican government.
Try reading this and learning and if you read well, then you will understand the difference between traceable and non-traceable. Good luck.
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
By William La Jeunesse & Maxim Lott
“While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/
May 26, 2010 @ 9:48 AM
If 1/3 of the guns seized in
If 1/3 of the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, that’s still too many.
From a US source:
May 26, 2010 @ 1:08 PM
Not a math guy either, eh?
Not a math guy either, eh?
May 26, 2010 @ 1:13 PM
The First Lady meets with a
The First Lady meets with a lovely little girl, innocent victim face, who just coincidentally would be negatively affected if conservative changes were made to immigration policy. The girl just coincidentally asks a very rehearsed sounding political question about her parent “lacking papers” and worried she’s gonna lose her mommy due to deportation. It was just coincidence that this looked like a perfectly timed PR event to draw emotional support behind President Obama’s opposition to proposals to deport illegals
Also just a coincidence that Obama administration officials, ahead of the event, had the girl’s (illegal immigrant) parent “…signed a release allowing the child to participate and be filmed.”
I love those on this forum who explained to us that this event was not staged in any way. You also believe Santa lives with elves at the pole? You also believe BP’s “little oil leak” only leaking out a few thousand gallons per day?
I hope those (who think this wasn’t staged) are all trading stocks today, because just a few of you trading could lower the worldwide “grade curve” (intellectually and competence-wise) of the traders I’m competing with in trading stocks. (Help make the sheep easy to sheer.)
🙂
May 26, 2010 @ 1:15 PM
Where is the picture of the
Where is the picture of the unicorn again?