1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gotta Wonder if Trump or Kelly Had Immigrants in Their Family Tree

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ShinyTop, Feb 6, 2018.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Quote from CNN: "Chief of staff Kelly suggests undocumented immigrants who didn't sign up for DACA were 'too afraid' or 'too lazy".

    "Too lazy" is a stereotype proven to be a lie.

    "Too afraid" would appear to be smart considering the administration's push to do away with it and refusal to extend it past its early March expiration. Why put yourself on a list that would ease efforts to deport you?
  2. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I think Kelly said something on the order of, "The President can't extend it because he doesn't have the authority to do so. For him to extend it would be an unconstitutional act."

    Which is 180 out from the last guy who did just that (an unconstitutional act) to create the program...
    cdw likes this.
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    The creation of DACA was not successfully challenged in the courts. The expansion of DACA in 2014 was successfully challenged. So unconstitutional is an opinion.
  4. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    I guess the answer you would want would be to the question if they ILLEGAL immigrants in their family tree? That's the point, is it not? Legal vs illegal?
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    This is the point constantly and deliberately left out by our repugnant media of the US.
    cdw likes this.
  6. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Ya, maybe I let my contempt for the intelligence behind the remarks color my thread title. So let me clarify my beliefs about immigration and the law.

    First point is that laws should be enforced. Period. If it is a bad law get rid of it. If it does not accomplish the goals of the law fix it or get rid of it. Keeping bad laws on the books encourages enforcement differences from location to location. Bad laws encourage judges to legislate and encourages otherwise law abiding citizens to break or bend the laws.

    With specific reference to immigration I believe the country has a right to determine who it wants and who it does not by means of immigration law. Can immigration law be discriminatory? Hell yes, there is no way for it not to be. But it is still our right to determine who comes in and who does not.

    I do not believe sanctuary cities should be allowed. When gray areas exist about paying for complete enforcement of immigration law those gray areas should be addressed.

    Now let's address DACA for just a moment. From what I wrote above one could infer that I think they should all go. Well, that would be inaccurate. First of all, DACA is currently law. Secondly I believe the dreamers did not break the law and fall into a gray area. Letting them stay if they meet the requirements of DACA seems like the right thing to do. I generally think that whenever something falls into a gray area let's do the right thing.

    Currently part of the law allows anybody born on American soil to be a citizen. Ya, that needs to go, unless they are born to a legal immigrant or a citizen. Anchor babies is just a way of avoiding the law.

    I think we need to look long and hard about who we allow to immigrate. Although I don't think we should be afraid of diversity I think we would be fools not to take into account how people tend to assimilate with regard to our laws.

    I am 100% against any requirement for any religious based immigration policy. If enough believe that there should be some religious based requirement begin the process to change the Constitution.

    I guess that's enough for now. H-1B visas and their subversion by big money wanting to pay little bucks could be the topic of another discussion.
    cdw, Susan Addams and Allene like this.
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Ulysses S. Simpson: "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."

    I think every young adult on or before their 18th birthday should take the test for US Citizenship. Failure means no full citizenship. No passport or voting until you pass it.

    Change the citizenship at birth to both parents legal citizens or immigrants seeking full citizenship.

    Suspend all federal grants to all states with a sanctuary city. Businesses HQ'd in said states are ineligible to apply for contracts. No contractors from aforementioned businesses allowed on federal installations either. It will take a week for the states to have the cities stop that bullshit.

    I remember hearing about the "No dogs or Sailors" signs in Norfolk. That city changed it's attitude real quick when the main gates were closed to all traffic. No contractors or workers in, no sailors out.
  8. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Bingo! It makes me angry every time they do that!
    cdw likes this.
  9. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    First, I want to note that I agree with Shiny's entire post 100%. Right on!

    There are huge numbers of H-1B workers in my field and in the engineering team that I work with, many of them Chinese. I have many friends among them, but I cannot believe that the employer can't find qualified Americans to fill the jobs.

    First we have the argument that we should allow illegal immigration because they are working in the fields and in disgusting industries that our youth are too stuck up to want to work there. Then we say we should allow the H-1B immigrants in because we can't find enough American professionals to fill the assignments.

    What happened to all the Americans? I'll tell you. They are unemployed or underemployed. Allowing the illegals to do the jobs satisfies the laws of supply and demand. You flood the job market with illegals who will work for anything and you end up with unemployed Americans. I admit my statement leaves something to be desired logically, perhaps somebody can explain it to me.
  10. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

  11. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Thanks for posting, Bob. I know you are a fellow genealogist. :) She complained about other people's disingenuousness in regard to immigration, but it seems to me that she is also being disingenuous. The relationship between Italy and the United States in the early 1900s cannot be compared with that of many Middle Eastern countries and the United States in 2018. The Boston Bombers' family is an example. The current issues in this country involve ILLEGAL immigration, chain immigration from countries that hate the U.S., and immigration based on diversity rather than merit. She's skirting the real issues here.
  12. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    That's the problem right there. Immigration based on "diversity" really means punishing whites. It's just the same old discrimination except this time it's against mainstream American.

    Prove to me that diversity helps America. All I've seen proved is that diversity helps illegal immigrants at the cost to American taxpayers.

    And what can you say about merit? Merit has merit! It means if we let these people in it will benefit America.

    The policy is bass ackwards. We are picking immigrants who will hurt America over immigrants who will help America. That's just thinking crazy.

    Go ahead government. Post your idea of the politically correct mixture of America, what percentage white, what percentage black, what percentage French? Please, share with us your recipe for a PC America. Tell us why we must let in people who drag America down, and why we can't simply pick people that benefit America without regard to any racial/ethnic numbers.

    Please note that condoning illegal immigrants constitutes a policy that America wants more such people.
    Allene likes this.
  13. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    I wonder what the total 'average' cost is to get a green card and then go for citizenship is.
  14. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Filing for a green card for employment: This is very complicated! It starts out with $85 (background check) and usually ends up over $1,000.

    Filing for citizenship costs in the range of $640-$725. There are other costs, such as photos, etc. Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

    I got a green card in January 1969 and citizenship in 1975. It didn't cost that much then!
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    To bring over my wife it cost about 2K all together. Then another filing fees towards citizenship was about another 500 dollars. The US Feds are making a killing per person.
  16. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    It's funny how "chain immigration" sounds so crazy until you break it down into specific people. Ethics I'm very happy for you and your wife that you succeeded in bringing her here to join you.

    You are obviously a quality immigrant. I think we need to focus on what immigrants are bringing to America. What repels me is immigrants who come here to suck off our welfare systems. I think the first question should be, "Explain to us how you are going to immigrate to America and contribute to our economy either by being a skilled employee or by starting a legitimate and successful business, perhaps one that provides jobs for other Americans."

    If they can improve America then let them in. If they are going to suck off our welfare system then tell them to go suck off the welfare system of their country of origin.
  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    We need to adopt the same immigration policy as Canada. Basically, based on merit and what the immigrants can bring to the rest of society. We no longer need just regular anyone since we are not economically based on factory labor.
    MemphisMark, Allene and Susan Addams like this.
  18. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Canada has really tightened up on immigration policy. There's a lottery system now, and if you miss the window, you're pretty much out for at least a year. Only "guaranteed" way to get landed status is if you're married to a Canadian and apply via humanitarian grounds. Even then, there's a chance you may get denied.
    Allene and Susan Addams like this.
  19. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    This policy makes a lot of sense to me. Why should we accept immigrants on their need? Why not base immigration acceptance criteria on what is good for America?

    I think the criteria should be plain and simple: (1) bring some job skills, or bring some entrepreneurial skills and the money you need to start up your company? And (2) just agree to accept our culture, either know English or be prepared to learn it, and don't bring over your culture that wants to change OUR culture.

    It's just that simple. We accept non-hostile cultures other than ours. All your culture has to do is preach peaceful co-existence. Preach harmony with your fellow men (and women). ... If your culture treats women like chattel same as camels then you are not welcome.

    I don't want immigrants who are simply going to overload our welfare system. We already got enough of those that we don't need you import tax burden people.
  20. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Canada is geographically larger than the United States. Yet more people live in California than live in all of Canada. What those numbers infer explains the social, economic and cultural mindset of the many vast differences between the two countries.
    Allene likes this.

Share This Page