Children of illegals in the US get to stay...what is the worse that can happen...

[Cozarkian]

You can't place me politically because i'm all you wish you were, i'm a classical liberal, a TRUE balls to bones one that haven't existed in US politics since the days of Madison. You're just a wise and beautiful woman with a paranoid delusion.

Let me guess, member of the national Libertarian Party?

 

[Matt1970]

Well, first of all that is entire bullsheit, in the EU there is free movement so they get the poor in every rich nation not to mention that the actual refugees who actually have nothing what so ever do come to Europe more than there are immigrants coming into the US legal and illegal combined.

And i suppose that because you are from the US you are someone who dislikes Jews, hates black people and wants to discriminate against gays, all policies in different parts of the US, or do you, like me, have an actual opinion of your own that is not tied to any of that? Can you think for yourself or is Obama your master?

I'm from a nation where we do not celebrate "christmas" but we do celebrate the winter solstice, we have no religion but we do have a state church that is membership only... we are mostly atheists and we took in more Iraqi refugees in a small town than the US as a whole did, we paid the price for your war.

Who celebrates the longest day of winter?

 

[cyclohexane]

How about securing the border before offering permanent residency to children of illegals. Wtf... Do any you understand what the problem is here? Did you even read the article?

Lol, just because you came out of a vagina this side of the border does not make you a patriotic hero. I know plenty of useless rednecks who claim "their country" is getting ruined. These guys don't contribute shit. If anyone should be deported, they should be it.

 

[Vic]

Let me guess, you just discovered nihilism in your your unused yet 27 year old psych 101 textbook?

A free country does not mean it does not have laws, quite the opposite actually.

Of course, free countries have laws. The rule of law is the only known means by which freedom can be achieved with any lasting stability.
However, in a free country, laws should (1) restrict the freedom of travel as little as possible, (2) apply universally to all persons.

 

[Vic]

This country was founded by immigrants who moved here and starved if they didn't bust their asses. There was no welfare, social security, food stamps and section 8 housing in the 1700s.

But as another poster pointed out, if you want to make sure that the increasingly small number of available jobs have more and more competition for them and allow employers to pay less and less, then by all means continue. The wealthy appreciate your support.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States

Problem is, not many folks actually seem to want real, honest to goodness, facts. They simply want their bias confirmed so that they can have a good rave and rant about <fill in the blank>.

 

[Jaskalas]

Of course, free countries have laws. The rule of law is the only known means by which freedom can be achieved with any lasting stability.

That is the ENTIRE point of immigration laws.

 

[michal1980]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_States

Problem is, not many folks actually seem to want real, honest to goodness, facts. They simply want their bias confirmed so that they can have a good rave and rant about <fill in the blank>.

facts?

That whole link is a rant.

 

[Victorian Gray]

facts?

That whole link is a rant.

You're amusing. Do you perform stand-up anywhere?

 

[unokitty]

Obama's immigration plan: Go Greyhound?

While the country watches in horror at the way the VA has treated America's veterans, there's another outrage occurring right under our noses.

Scores of undocumented immigrants are being flown to Arizona and dumped at bus stations in Phoenix and Tucson.

By Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It seems the overwhelmed Texas Border Patrol doesn't have the manpower to handle the surge in illegal border crossings in south Texas, so they're exporting immigrants caught trying to sneak into Texas to Arizona, where the immigrants are apparently free to go about their business.

...people are then dropped at bus stations in Phoenix and Tucson and told to report to a local ICE office within 15 days.

Never mind the inhumanity in dumping people – many of them women and babies – into a strange city where the temperatures are soaring over 100 degrees and they know no one.

Never mind that it seems just absurd to think they're actually going to show up at a local ICE office within 15 days, as directed.

It's a genius plan ...

While President Obama continues his call for immigration reform and talks about securing the border and his record number of deportations, it seems his interdiction plan these days can be summed up in two words: Go Greyhound.

Federal Government demonstrating its humanity in the way that only it can...

Uno

 

[BoberFett]

It's funny that site calls itself rationalwiki. The article is full of slanted opinion, very little rational about it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's funny that site calls itself rationalwiki. The article is full of slanted opinion, very little rational about it.

And their reply to you:

"RationalWiki has numerous critics, roughly divided in two groups that often overlap: those that take issue with the content and those who take issue with the style. Both tend to quickly degenerate into "so why do they call it RationalWiki, then?" This may be based on a slight confusion between rationalisation and rationalism – as no one ever thinks they're being irrational, they're likely to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as irrational. In principle, this point extends to RationalWiki itself, which declares everyone who doesn't follow its POV irrational – making the choice of title somewhat unfortunate and ironic.


The content critics are typically the fans of people or subjects that RationalWiki doesn't speak favorably of. Supporters of noted politician Ron Paul certainly aren't fans,[8] angry that someone, somewhere dares not declare Ron Paul to be the Second Coming. Ayn Rand fans do much the same. Other criticism of content is often directed at shorter and less complete articles.[9] RW's rating system goes part way to rectifying the issue of lower quality articles but is implemented in a completely ad hoc wikilike fashion.


RationalWiki's style is frequently criticized, with some objecting to the odd sense of humor (and the even odder one of humour) and getting upset that people aren't taking their idea of rationalism seriously. LessWrong bloggers and commentators in particular find it annoyingly irrational (with prior probability

). LessWrong's founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, once defended RW as a potential recruiting ground for hardcore rationalists but mostly as "clueless."[10] Issues with style include the running debate over whether RW's self-touted viewpoint, "SPOV," means "Scientific Point of View (plus snark)" or "Snarky Point of View (plus science).""


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:About#Criticism

 

[michal1980]

And their reply to you:

"RationalWiki has numerous critics, roughly divided in two groups that often overlap: those that take issue with the content and those who take issue with the style. Both tend to quickly degenerate into "so why do they call it RationalWiki, then?" This may be based on a slight confusion between rationalisation and rationalism – as no one ever thinks they're being irrational, they're likely to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as irrational. In principle, this point extends to RationalWiki itself, which declares everyone who doesn't follow its POV irrational – making the choice of title somewhat unfortunate and ironic.


The content critics are typically the fans of people or subjects that RationalWiki doesn't speak favorably of. Supporters of noted politician Ron Paul certainly aren't fans,[8] angry that someone, somewhere dares not declare Ron Paul to be the Second Coming. Ayn Rand fans do much the same. Other criticism of content is often directed at shorter and less complete articles.[9] RW's rating system goes part way to rectifying the issue of lower quality articles but is implemented in a completely ad hoc wikilike fashion.


RationalWiki's style is frequently criticized, with some objecting to the odd sense of humor (and the even odder one of humour) and getting upset that people aren't taking their idea of rationalism seriously. LessWrong bloggers and commentators in particular find it annoyingly irrational (with prior probability

). LessWrong's founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, once defended RW as a potential recruiting ground for hardcore rationalists but mostly as "clueless."[10] Issues with style include the running debate over whether RW's self-touted viewpoint, "SPOV," means "Scientific Point of View (plus snark)" or "Snarky Point of View (plus science).""


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:About#Criticism

lol. If you want to quote something that says 'myth vs fact' then the site should have less slant, less bias, and less opinion. And maybe contain more fact.

 

[Victorian Gray]

lol. If you want to quote something that says 'myth vs fact' then the site should have less slant, less bias, and less opinion. And maybe contain more fact.

I see that their reply was meant for you as well.

 

[boomerang]

If only the answer to illegal immigration was as simple as a check box on your 1040.

"Do you wish to increase your tax paid by x% to educate and support individuals that have come to the U.S. illegally? Checking this box may not provide sufficient funding such that some people may be turned away."

If you support it, pay for it and if you don't, don't. Every taxpayer gets a choice.

 

[IGBT]

all organized societies eventually fail. Any doubt the US is in free fall failure mode?? Where will you hide when the fighting in the streets start??