Trump wants to end Birthright Citizenship

[Snowball]

Are you one of those round earth conspiracy theorists who think we already landed on the moon?

Not with Apollo, we didn't.

[69360]

1. Ok someone explain to me why it is that most of the woods I played in as a kid in Northern Virginia in the 80s have been turned into neighborhoods.
Someone explain to me why it is that when I was in Denver in the early 90s it was still islands of civilization on I-25 and now it's basically one huge neighborhood from Fort Collins to Pueblo.

I don't need facts and figures to find the problems with your post. I just need eyes and a half century of life under my belt. You don't need a 100% increase in living accommodations over 30 years to have sustainable population growth. The places I've been living tend to show that... and if the birth rate is really that low and immigration is really needed to fix that, then what we have been experiencing is an overcorrection... and that was PRIOR to opening the flood gates. It's simply too many damned people - and that's not even getting into the already mentioned idea that nobody has tried fixing the birth rate prior to importing everyone.

2. We actually have a historical example to look at in America for replacement. There was a gigantic die-off in the existing human population here in the 1500s. Admittedly there are massive technological differences in play but it still took almost three centuries for the indigenous numbers to be overcome by non-indigenous. That's a pretty good example to look at if you're trying to resist the replacement theory, since the outgoing and incoming cultures were night-and-day different - but as I've pointed out here before, there are mitigating factors here. The difference between a brown-skinned Roman Catholic family-oriented drywaller and a white-skinned Southern Baptist auto mechanic are not that great - and we've actually had several more recent examples in US history where we have successfully integrated people with different color skin, skills that don't require an advanced degree, and a different expression of trinitarian Christianity. And by "more recent" I really mean 150-90 years ago.

If we were beset with what the UK, Ireland, and Sweden are going through, where the majority of their immigration actually is an alien culture that is bent on changing things for the worse, there would be a point in preventing them coming, but here, it's not the same. We have enough in common with the immigrants that they can be integrated the same way as has been done a dozen times already. We just have to, you know, actually, kinda, try.

3. That's not to say I think we should do one thing or the other. My position is I throw immigration in the same bucket with Abortion. The federal government never properly had the power to rule on it, the federal government arrogated that power inappropriately, and it's a matter that ought to be left to the states. In this case literally the only thing the federal government has any business talking about is birthright citizenship - and that's what they're talking about ending... probably without a constitutional amendment, too, if Trump's prior M.O. is any indication.

We got to where we are through various governments - federal, state, and local - overstepping their authority. This site used to be for people who are against the use of government authority and particularly when it is not clearly authorized. Repealing the one thing they do have authority to do, and ignoring the things they never had authority to do, will only make things worse.

The birth rate in America is really that low. Without an increase in births or immigration it will be an extinction level event for the country.

Everyone has an opinion as to what the problems and solutions are, but those are the facts.

This is happening all over the world not just the US. It's even worse in Japan, China and Korea for example.

[Pauls' Revere]

Right from Ron's playbook.

Yep, only took what? 10 years or so.

[Swordsmyth]

1. Ok someone explain to me why it is that most of the woods I played in as a kid in Northern Virginia in the 80s have been turned into neighborhoods.
Someone explain to me why it is that when I was in Denver in the early 90s it was still islands of civilization on I-25 and now it's basically one huge neighborhood from Fort Collins to Pueblo.

I don't need facts and figures to find the problems with your post. I just need eyes and a half century of life under my belt. You don't need a 100% increase in living accommodations over 30 years to have sustainable population growth. The places I've been living tend to show that... and if the birth rate is really that low and immigration is really needed to fix that, then what we have been experiencing is an overcorrection... and that was PRIOR to opening the flood gates. It's simply too many damned people - and that's not even getting into the already mentioned idea that nobody has tried fixing the birth rate prior to importing everyone.

2. We actually have a historical example to look at in America for replacement. There was a gigantic die-off in the existing human population here in the 1500s. Admittedly there are massive technological differences in play but it still took almost three centuries for the indigenous numbers to be overcome by non-indigenous. That's a pretty good example to look at if you're trying to resist the replacement theory, since the outgoing and incoming cultures were night-and-day different - but as I've pointed out here before, there are mitigating factors here. The difference between a brown-skinned Roman Catholic family-oriented drywaller and a white-skinned Southern Baptist auto mechanic are not that great - and we've actually had several more recent examples in US history where we have successfully integrated people with different color skin, skills that don't require an advanced degree, and a different expression of trinitarian Christianity. And by "more recent" I really mean 150-90 years ago.

If we were beset with what the UK, Ireland, and Sweden are going through, where the majority of their immigration actually is an alien culture that is bent on changing things for the worse, there would be a point in preventing them coming, but here, it's not the same. We have enough in common with the immigrants that they can be integrated the same way as has been done a dozen times already. We just have to, you know, actually, kinda, try.

3. That's not to say I think we should do one thing or the other. My position is I throw immigration in the same bucket with Abortion. The federal government never properly had the power to rule on it, the federal government arrogated that power inappropriately, and it's a matter that ought to be left to the states. In this case literally the only thing the federal government has any business talking about is birthright citizenship - and that's what they're talking about ending... probably without a constitutional amendment, too, if Trump's prior M.O. is any indication.

We got to where we are through various governments - federal, state, and local - overstepping their authority. This site used to be for people who are against the use of government authority and particularly when it is not clearly authorized. Repealing the one thing they do have authority to do, and ignoring the things they never had authority to do, will only make things worse.

Their political cultures are quite alien and destructive to liberty.
And Immigration was always a government power and duty.
The founders spoke about it.

[Swordsmyth]

The birth rate in America is really that low. Without an increase in births or immigration it will be an extinction level event for the country.

Everyone has an opinion as to what the problems and solutions are, but those are the facts.

This is happening all over the world not just the US. It's even worse in Japan, China and Korea for example.

And in all cases it is the result of the ruling class robbing the shirts off the backs of the working and middle classes.
Immigration and globalization just make that worse.

[69360]

And in all cases it is the result of the ruling class robbing the shirts off the backs of the working and middle classes.
Immigration and globalization just make that worse.

That's part of it sure. But poor people have had children for thousands of years. It is a social contagian. Younger people don't want to have children because they are treated like children until their mid 30's. Childless life used to be the exception and odd, but now it's normal.

[Anti Federalist]

That's part of it sure. But poor people have had children for thousands of years. It is a social contagian. Younger people don't want to have children because they are treated like children until their mid 30's. Childless life used to be the exception and odd, but now it's normal.

We don't agree often but you are exactly right, it is a contagion, an alien mind virus that attacks on a number of levels.

[Swordsmyth]

That's part of it sure. But poor people have had children for thousands of years. It is a social contagian. Younger people don't want to have children because they are treated like children until their mid 30's. Childless life used to be the exception and odd, but now it's normal.

People in grinding poverty whose standard of living is stable have children, people who are even almost comfortable will not have children if their standard of living is declining.
Our standards of living are declining.

There is a social contagion aspect as well, but it is the minor cause not the major cause.

Both the declining standard of living and the social contagion affect the immigrants and their children, they do not solve the problem and help to make it worse by driving down wages.

[fisharmor]

The birth rate in America is really that low. Without an increase in births or immigration it will be an extinction level event for the country.

Everyone has an opinion as to what the problems and solutions are, but those are the facts.

This is happening all over the world not just the US. It's even worse in Japan, China and Korea for example.

You ignored my point about new home construction. New home construction has never dropped below 500,000 new homes and almost got to 2 million in 2021.
You don't build 2 million homes if your birth rate is negative and you're not already making up for it with immigration.
So this is a false premise.

Their political cultures are quite alien and destructive to liberty.
And Immigration was always a government power and duty.
The founders spoke about it.

And *you* ignored everything I wrote, too. Particularly the part about how we've done this before, several times, and it has worked out - BECAUSE there was infrastructure in place to indoctrinate the newcomers in the American way of life.
Your issue literally can't be with the fact that they're a little different - your issue has to be with the naturalization process not doing what you want it to.

Also, the founders may have talked about it - but they didn't write it into the constitution. We've been over this. Naturalization is a different word with a different meaning and that meaning does not encompass immigration. Stretching the definition of what is in the constitution is a leftist tactic.

[69360]

You ignored my point about new home construction. New home construction has never dropped below 500,000 new homes and almost got to 2 million in 2021.
You don't build 2 million homes if your birth rate is negative and you're not already making up for it with immigration.
So this is a false premise.

Childless people don't buy homes?

The birthrate below the replacement threshold is a real thing.

[TheCount]

Childless people don't buy homes?

The birthrate below the replacement threshold is a real thing.

Childless people's children do not buy homes.

[acptulsa]

Childless people's children do not buy homes.

And yet the prices of the things keep skyrocketing as if there was beaucoup demand. Funny how that works.

[TheCount]

And yet the prices of the things keep skyrocketing as if there was beaucoup demand. Funny how that works.

It's almost as if one quarter of all low priced houses in the country are being purchased as investments rather than homes.

[69360]

It's almost as if one quarter of all low priced houses in the country are being purchased as investments rather than homes.

That and there is such a shortage of housing, it will take several generations before the demand slows down due to declining births.

[Swordsmyth]

And *you* ignored everything I wrote, too. Particularly the part about how we've done this before, several times, and it has worked out - BECAUSE there was infrastructure in place to indoctrinate the newcomers in the American way of life.
Your issue literally can't be with the fact that they're a little different - your issue has to be with the naturalization process not doing what you want it to.

Also, the founders may have talked about it - but they didn't write it into the constitution. We've been over this. Naturalization is a different word with a different meaning and that meaning does not encompass immigration. Stretching the definition of what is in the constitution is a leftist tactic.

Utter nonsense, there is a hard limit on how many immigrants you can assimilate and it doesn't scale with the size of your population, and that's even if you have the assimilation system set up properly.
The past waves assimilated better but not well enough, and they seriously contributed to the erosion of our liberty culture.

A1S8

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

A1S8
...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.


Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.

From the very beginning, from before there was a United States, you were required to join a church, register your family name and everybody in your family and apply for "freeman" papers, when arriving the colonies.


The dates in May of 1634 and 1636 are chosen
because of some features of the migration process. Most passenger ships
did not leave England until spring, because of the bad weather in the
North Atlantic earlier in the year. Thus it would be impossible for a
passenger on one of these ships to have joined a church and then applied
for freemanship in time for the annual General Court of Election, which
in 1634 took place on 14 May and in 1636 on 25 May. Thus it is
assumed that all the men who appeared in the list of freemen on 25 May
1636 must have arrived in New England no later than 1635.

To say that there was in early America no idea of who was coming or going, no records kept and no control over who showed up, is just not historically accurate.

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:

• "It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.

• "Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)

Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:

• "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)

There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.
We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without "extraordinary encouragements." (5)
What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.
Footnotes:
1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid.

More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml


"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

--Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

I have taken the term of four millions and a half of inhabitants for example's sake only. Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the country spoken of, considering how much inarrable land it contains, can clothe and feed, without a material change in the quality of their diet. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know. It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labour being abundant: here it is to make the most of our labour, land being abundant.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/jefferson/ch08.html

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.
But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...or-citizenship

In addition, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

High Misdemeanor=Impeachable offense.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul

More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals....Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. - Ron Paul on "Meet the Press" 23 Dec 2007


Ron Paul's position from 2007:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
  
• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
  
• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
  
• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
  
• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  
• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26

[Anti Federalist]

It's almost as if one quarter of all low priced houses in the country are being purchased as investments rather than homes.

While at the same time 10 million or more invaders showed up, just in the last few years, on top of the millions that already invaded that Ron was warning us about almost 20 years ago now, all needing a place to squat and $#@!.

And housing prices have skyrocketed...imagine that.

[TheCount]

While at the same time 10 million or more invaders showed up, just in the last few years, on top of the millions that already invaded that Ron was warning us about almost 20 years ago now, all needing a place to squat and $#@!.

And housing prices have skyrocketed...imagine that.

They must be incredibly diligent and industrious to be buying homes when Americans aren't managing to.

[Swordsmyth]

They must be incredibly diligent and industrious to be buying homes when Americans aren't managing to.

The government is giving them welfare money, more than Americans get, including money specifically to buy houses.

[Swordsmyth]

They also commit many crimes to steal money.

[Anti Federalist]

They must be incredibly diligent and industrious to be buying homes when Americans aren't managing to.

It seems so...with government money.

This left wing piece says it's a good thing.

Hyper inflated home prices is "wealth" don't ya see?

Like a $20 minimum wage will make you rich.

How 40 Million Immigrants Create Housing Wealth and Stabilize Communities

[TheCount]

It seems so...with government money.

This left wing piece says it's a good thing.

Hyper inflated home prices is "wealth" don't ya see?

Like a $20 minimum wage will make you rich.

How 40 Million Immigrants Create Housing Wealth and Stabilize Communities

Strange how immigrants can buy houses with their government money and yet Americans can't do that with theirs. How does that work?

[TheCount]

The government is giving them welfare money, more than Americans get, including money specifically to buy houses.

They also commit many crimes to steal money.

You can make up things that don't exist at an extremely fast rate.

Seems to be how you get by in life.

[LibertyEagle]

Fisharmor, this is ILLEGAL immigration and one crap ton of it. Are you wanting to personally support all these people? Because if you are all for this crap, we should send them to your house and start sending all the bills to you. Not to mention when the next attack comes.

[Swordsmyth]

You can make up things that don't exist at an extremely fast rate.

Seems to be how you get by in life.

Projection by you.

The crime is well established, everything from identity theft to welfare fraud and organized crime.

And this is just one of many examples of the welfare they get:

Illegal Aliens to Get Interest-Free Home Loans Under New Democrat-Backed California Bill

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...e-loans-under/

[TheCount]

Projection by you.

The crime is well established, everything from identity theft to welfare fraud and organized crime.

If it were so well established you wouldn't have to talk out your ass.

And this is just one of many examples of the welfare they get:

Illegal Aliens to Get Interest-Free Home Loans Under New Democrat-Backed California Bill


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...e-loans-under/

Illegal aliens bought houses with money from a draft bill that hasn't been voted on?

[Swordsmyth]

If it were so well established you wouldn't have to talk out your ass.

I'm not, you are.

Illegal aliens bought houses with money from a draft bill that hasn't been voted on?

That's just one recent example, the government at all levels and the NGOs (proxies for government) have been showering them with all kinds of money for everything, including money specifically for rent or home buying.

[TheCount]

I'm not, you are.

Well then?

That's just one recent example, the government at all levels and the NGOs (proxies for government) have been showering them with all kinds of money for everything, including money specifically for rent or home buying.

If there were examples you wouldn't have to talk out your ass.

[acptulsa]

If it were so well established you wouldn't have to talk out your ass.

If there were examples you wouldn't have to talk out your ass.

I'm pretty sure he'd do it anyway.

[PAF]

Fisharmor, this is ILLEGAL immigration and one crap ton of it. Are you wanting to personally support all these people? Because if you are all for this crap, we should send them to your house and start sending all the bills to you. Not to mention when the next attack comes.

Fisharmor is an anarchist like me, no way he would support that. In fact, it is you who are supporting it, by turning your cheek and voting for the politicians who "legally" pass such atrocious legislation. Truth hurts, but it's also treason in an empire of lies.

[LibertyEagle]

::