MA declares a State of Emergency because of too many migrants

[Chuckie]

I don’t have a problem with H1-B1 legal visa migrant workers. That’s LEGAL. As for illegals the country would do fine without them. The illegals want the jobs of America. America doesn’t need them. All the low wage jobs that are suppressed due to illegal aliens would end up with rising wages helping out the people that are already competing for them against the underpaid illegals.

Who would work them? People that need the money. There were plenty of Americans doing those jobs already before the illegal immigration suppressed the wages to the point that Americans didn’t want them anymore.

I’ve known Americans that work peanut farms. I’ve known Americans that worked cattle ranches. I’ve known Americans that worked Farms. I’ve known Americans that worked as house cleaners, I’ve known Americans that were janitors, unskilled labor in addition to construction workers. Americans have done all these jobs. It’s kind of hard to run a business of just Americans when the other guy has a complete crew of illegals getting paid way less. Makes it hard as in impossible to compete in business. It’s time to make these jobs for Americans that pay decent wages once more.

Revamp the immigration laws? Sorry, feck no. The laws work. There’s no need to revamp the law. The law is not being faithfully upheld. America doesn’t need a flood of people coming in that don’t want to be American and fly their foreign flags. America doesn’t need these people. If they want to become Americans and become part of our society, that’s fine. America doesn’t need foreigners squatting here putting a drain on the system where those finances could be used on Americans instead. Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer billions and billions of dollars every year. That’s an unnecessary waste that could be used on better things. On Americans other than people who don’t belong here to begin with in the first place.

The reason the overwhelming majority of these foreign invaders are here is because they are falsely claiming asylum. It is a statistical fact that 99.5% of them do not qualify and have no legal business being here to start with. So feck them.

Economic benefits. That is the overwhelming number one reason that these people come here. Our countrys money is so over inflated due to inflation that it seems like everybody is a millionaire here. They want to come here for these untold riches just to send it back to their native countries. Wanting a higher paying job better than their country was paying is not a qualifying reason. Wanting to be here and have the life is not a qualifying reason. There are consulates, embassy‘s and a process that they can apply for entry and citizenship. And if they meet the legal statutes for coming here then fine. I don’t care. Good on them. But just to come here and mooch off our system and screw Americans by suppressing their jobs and wages, when Americans have it hard enough already is not a legal reason to come here.

Some of what you wrote at the bottom of your post is already law. The problem is it’s not being faithfully upheld. Once these people come in, they disappear. They’re not showing up to their court hearing for their legal asylum claims. Why? Because they know they didn’t qualify and that was just an excuse to come in. They are already supposed to be expeditiously deported. And that was happening under President Trump. But that all came to a grinding halt again once Obamanations third term BeijingBiden got into office.

We have enough laws and rules that this should, could and does work already. IF APPLIED. Like I keep saying, the law is not being faithfully upheld.

ANERICANS, have a say in who can and can’t come into our country . Illegal aliens opinions, feeling or wants do not trump Americans rights. Illegal is illegal

So you do not think that our immigration laws need to be updated? Great, but I don't agree that a prego immigrant that crosses our border illegally just to have her baby so that it automatically becomes a full-fledged American citizen is the way to go because when that kiddo reaches the age of adulthood (18), they can then use that ill-gained citizenship to sponsor any number of other immigrants that probably shouldn't be in our country. No other First-World country has an "Anchor Baby" law - they all require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

 

[Adhdferret]

So you do not think that our immigration laws need to be updated? Great, but I don't agree that a prego immigrant that crosses our border illegally just to have her baby so that it automatically becomes a full-fledged American citizen is the way to go because when that kiddo reaches the age of adulthood (18), they can then use that ill-gained citizenship to sponsor any number of other immigrants that probably shouldn't be in our country. No other First-World country has an "Anchor Baby" law - they all require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

Ok, fair enough on that assessment of citizenship.

How about this one then? A child that is raised from say infant to adult in usa. One that speaks both English, and Spanish, never been to Mexico either?

Went to American schools, American parks, ate American food and said the pledge of allegiance, but their parents were border jumpers, and never got that kid a ss#

Are they an American? Should they go back to a nation they have never known, a culture they have never been part of?

Should we as Americans support them being thrown out?

 

[Adhdferret]

Mumbai, India

You been there?

I went to Delhi round 1999. It was bad then, like really bad. It has gotten worse too. They have found serial killers with hundreds of pairs of kids shoes in barrels over there.

Dude killed scores of kids, because over there kids are just a thing in the world, like trash, or tools depending on who you are I guess.

Northern India is nothing but Muslim extremist too, and I dont mean Muslim light like you see here where they wear that thing over their heads like ring wraiths from lord of the rings.

I am talking about that blue and white outfit that you can't even see the color of their eyes. Let me tell you about Muslims.

Ever wonder why they have women dress like that? The real reason I guess is what I am asking?

It is because they are of substandard intellect. It's not stupidity like some disorder it is that the males are good for one thing, carrying out the orders of the imam (like a priest).

Their drive to reproduce is much stronger than their drive to carry out the wishes of their religion. That is the ones in country too, not that usually make it here to usa.

 

[Adhdferret]

The people in commiefornika think that when the San Andreas fault has the big one, the rest of the country will topple into the ocean leaving them as an island. I kid you not.

Eh maybe, but from what I understand as being there working for 2 months is that they rely completely upon an authority to instruct them what to do.

This is how group think in huge cities works. Ever been to a gated community? I used to deliver appliances for Home Depot and around black Friday we always had massive deliveries to places like Galardia, or Freemon Manor.

You know what you never see in those areas? Even Nicols Hills.

Don't see women pushing strollers, don't see parents with their kids at parks.

Go to SW29th where little Mexico is, or Classen in China town just with OKC....that parents or kids outside just walking and interacting.

Don't see that in these communities with people having a credit score over 700. That well off people mindset is creeping into other areas of people.

 

[Chuckie]

Ok, fair enough on that assessment of citizenship.

How about this one then? A child that is raised from say infant to adult in usa. One that speaks both English, and Spanish, never been to Mexico either?

Went to American schools, American parks, ate American food and said the pledge of allegiance, but their parents were border jumpers, and never got that kid a ss#

Are they an American? Should they go back to a nation they have never known, a culture they have never been part of?

Should we as Americans support them being thrown out?

- I know that your are referring to the 'Dream Act Bill' (original 2001, replaced by DACA in 2012, current version of 2023) which allowed the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and eventually be permitted citizenship provided they met/meet certain conditions of the Act(s).
-In my opinion, if those children did/do meet all of the conditions required as set out by these Bill(s), then they should be allowed to be processed into citizenship as the bill(s) have promised.

NOTE: new applications for the DACA program are still being taken, however, at the present time none are being approved.

 

[okcBob]

“Liberals lie. That was just political expediency talk at the time.”

Of course . I posted it as supporting evidence of post #108

 

[Adhdferret]

- I know that your are referring to the 'Dream Act Bill' (original 2001, replaced by DACA in 2012, current version of 2023) which allowed the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and eventually be permitted citizenship provided they met/meet certain conditions of the Act(s).
-In my opinion, if those children did/do meet all of the conditions required as set out by these Bill(s), then they should be allowed to be processed into citizenship as the bill(s) have promised.

NOTE: new applications for the DACA program are still being taken, however, at the present time none are being approved.

I have heard of that bill, but I never read it. Mainly because in my opinion it stifles the American philosophy as it was intended.

I understand that as a society we need law, and I dont dispute its existence ok? I just don't agree there should be any consideration to inhibit someone a better life.

I also realize that I dont have the best answer, I am not that guy, and I remain case by case to analyze it.

 

[Chuckie]

I have heard of that bill, but I never read it. Mainly because in my opinion it stifles the American philosophy as it was intended.

I understand that as a society we need law, and I dont dispute its existence ok? I just don't agree there should be any consideration to inhibit someone a better life.

I also realize that I dont have the best answer, I am not that guy, and I remain case by case to analyze it.

- There was a time when people from South of our border were literally shoving their babies and young children across our border in the hopes that, 'at least my children will grow-up having a better life than I can give them', and then just walking off leaving them. Others came unaccompanied as part of a larger caravan of immigrants.
- The 'Dream Act' (later to become the 'DACA Act') tried/tries to solve the problem of what to do with the babies and other underage unaccompanied children that were in our country illegally. It would not have been morally right to just push them back across the border where a magnitude of child rapists, child trafficers, and drug pushers were just waiting outside our border to pounce on these new victims.
- It's not perfect but what the 'Act' does is to open a path for these children to eventually become American citizens provided they meet the requirements, namely to get a college degree or serve honorably in our military, don't break our laws, maintain good moral character, etc.
- We made a pact that if they did what they were required to do then we would hold up our end of the deal and grant them citizenship. We, as a Nation need to keep our promises. For those 'kids' that didn't comply with the rules of the 'Act', they need to be treated like any other illegal foreigner and booted out of our country just as soon as they reach adulthood.

 

[Seadog]

So you do not think that our immigration laws need to be updated? Great, but I don't agree that a prego immigrant that crosses our border illegally just to have her baby so that it automatically becomes a full-fledged American citizen is the way to go because when that kiddo reaches the age of adulthood (18), they can then use that ill-gained citizenship to sponsor any number of other immigrants that probably shouldn't be in our country. No other First-World country has an "Anchor Baby" law - they all require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

Sure I’m against illegal, alien anchor babies.

When we look at the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, the reconstruction amendments act. They served as very special and precise protections for freed slaves that were not considered human or considered as citizens. They went into affect because Democrats were still trying to put the blacks back into indentured servitude and oppress them. It’s kind of funny how this has been bastardized by the Democrats and the left in this time period to mean any illegal can come across our borders, squat, and pop out a baby rewarding it with citizenship and the parent or parents with American taxpayer money to take care of it.

Amendment 13 section 1 was wrote specifically for freed blacks and their offspring. It was not intended for people in the future coming here illegally. I don’t know of any law that rewards anybody for breaking it, except for Democrats in this one bastardized amendment.

13 amendment section 1
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.

Granted, this isn’t all of it, just the pertinent opening part. Where does it say illegal criminal aliens pushing out babies, breaking the law become citizens?

This part of the amendment has been bastardized and abuse so much that people take it for what democrats say. That it gives citizenship to an illegal aliens baby. They are not citizens so they are not afforded those rights of citizenship, yet the liberal progressive government has been claiming this for a long time and no one has wanted to challenge it. Part of the subject..

If this was for everyone all around the world then why did the government explicitly exclude the Indians until the 1930s? Why did the government exclude a few foreign ambassadors that had children while residing in the United States? Why exclude these few minute categories, but leave it wide open to everybody else in the entire world?

Because they didn’t. A big lie pushed by Democrats for the longest damn time. Oh, they’re just children, think of the children, the poor children. All heart strings, sympathy and BS over something that’s never been, yet has been accepted because the government has had the power, but never the authority. That’s why we’re in this boondoggle.

So if you’re saying, you want clarification, that illegals and their anchor babies aren’t citizens? Sure I’d be cool with that. If we could get this passed Democrats would be almost as mad as when Republicans freed and took their slaves away.

 

[Adhdferret]

Sure I’m against illegal, alien anchor babies.

When we look at the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, the reconstruction amendments act. They served as very special and precise protections for freed slaves that were not considered human or considered as citizens. They went into affect because Democrats were still trying to put the blacks back into indentured servitude and oppress them. It’s kind of funny how this has been bastardized by the Democrats and the left in this time period to mean any illegal can come across our borders, squat, and pop out a baby rewarding it with citizenship and the parent or parents with American taxpayer money to take care of it.

Amendment 13 section 1 was wrote specifically for freed blacks and their offspring. It was not intended for people in the future coming here illegally. I don’t know of any law that rewards anybody for breaking it, except for Democrats in this one bastardized amendment.

13 amendment section 1
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.

Granted, this isn’t all of it, just the pertinent opening part. Where does it say illegal criminal aliens pushing out babies, breaking the law become citizens?

This part of the amendment has been bastardized and abuse so much that people take it for what democrats say. That it gives citizenship to an illegal aliens baby. They are not citizens so they are not afforded those rights of citizenship, yet the liberal progressive government has been claiming this for a long time and no one has wanted to challenge it. Part of the subject..

If this was for everyone all around the world then why did the government explicitly exclude the Indians until the 1930s? Why did the government exclude a few foreign ambassadors that had children while residing in the United States? Why exclude these few minute categories, but leave it wide open to everybody else in the entire world?

Because they didn’t. A big lie pushed by Democrats for the longest damn time. Oh, they’re just children, think of the children, the poor children. All heart strings, sympathy and BS over something that’s never been, yet has been accepted because the government has had the power, but never the authority. That’s why we’re in this boondoggle.

So if you’re saying, you want clarification, that illegals and their anchor babies aren’t citizens? Sure I’d be cool with that. If we could get this passed Democrats would be almost as mad as when Republicans freed and took their slaves away.

You brought up some great points...I got one since you mentioned the amendments.

Right to bear arms....should someone like John Podesta, or anyone else that could afford it a nuclear weapon?

It is a means of defense...how about this one if that is too crazy.

Do you agree with the limitations of say my ability to purchase an automatic weapon?