Impressive Map of How the Electorate Voted in The Midterms

[FaninAma]

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1441/7809/original.jpg?w=600&h
For some reason I can't link the image itself. Prehaps a more litetrate IT poster can.

[olevetonahill]

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1441/7809/original.jpg?w=600&h

For some reason I can't link the image itself. Prehaps a more litetrate IT poster can.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1441/7809/original.jpg?w=600&h

[Ton Loc]

That's a whole lotta red.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well granted, the pubs have improved since the 2012 presidential election.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/statepop1024.png

[FaninAma]

SJS, There is a very good article on Realclearpolitics.com that explains why the Democrats should be vrey concerned about the emerging voter trends. Essentially their core, non-wavering base consists of Blacks and liberal elitists. Hispanics are showing a tendency to break away fron the Democratic Party and Asians actually are trending heavily toward the GOP albeit with the 2012 election being an outlier. I'll find a link for you.

[FaninAma]

Here it is: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-this-the-political-map-of-the-future/article/2556090

[dwarthog]

I sure wish the pundits would keep a lid on this stuff.

I'm perfectly content to let DNC Debbie continue to spew her all is well, nothing to see here we are all in for the little people rhetoric. ala Tariq Aziz...

[FaninAma]

Looking at this map it is apparent the Democrat party is operating in an echo chamber consisting of their liberal urban base reinforced by the sycophantic media establishments on the East and West coasts.

[Sooner8th]

Looking at this map it is apparent the Democrat party is operating in an echo chamber consisting of their liberal urban base reinforced by the sycophantic media establishments on the East and West coasts.

Funny how 36% of registered voters voting is a sign liberals and democrats are a dying breed, but when 62% of voters vote - IT WAS STOLEN OR BOUGHT BY FREE STUFF FROM THE GOOBERMENT!!!!

[okie52]

Liberals aren't dead...their supporters just need every 4 years to save up bus fare to get to the polls.

[FaninAma]

Funny how 36% of registered voters voting is a sign liberals and democrats are a dying breed, but when 62% of voters vote - IT WAS STOLEN OR BOUGHT BY FREE STUFF FROM THE GOOBERMENT!!!!
They are not a dying breed. In fact the Democrats depend on the fastest growing segment of the population....those who primarily are loyal to personalities and not principles. The Democrats had no strong personality on the ballot so a lot of their 2008/2012 voters stayed home. You might add in those that are disenchanted with the results of their votes in the last election.

[BigTip]

In fact the Democrats depend on the fastest growing segment of the population....

...5-6 million legalized criminals.

[Sooner8th]

...5-6 million legalized criminals.

Doing the same as bush and reagan, didn't bitch about it then.

You really do live in an alternate universe don't you?

[okie52]

Ummm Reagan went through congress on his amnesty.

And that amnesty was still a mistake 30 years later.

W never got his passed ( thank god).

And yes I was bitching back then about w's attempted sellout.

[Sooner8th]

Ummm Reagan went through congress on his amnesty.

And that amnesty was still a mistake 30 years later.

W never got his passed ( thank god).

And yes I was bitching back then about w's attempted sellout.

First off - not talking about dubya it was hw.

Second, working WITH congress? You got that crap off faux "news".

Here's a timeline of then and now:

—1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy. Congress in October passed a broader immigration law that made the protections permanent.

How is having your Immigration and Naturalization Service act "went through congress"? Hell, it says right there Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Then reagan acted, just like now.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

[okie52]

Reagan did go through Congress as I said for the 3,000,000 he granted amnesty to in 1986. But, you are right about the mistakes both Reagan and Daddy bush made in trying to modify the 1986 law through executive action...really inexcusable and the whole law and subsequent modifications were mistakes as history has shown as Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese pointed out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=0

And W did try twice to get amnesty through congress in 2005 and 2007 and thankfully it was defeated both times. The Bush family is really stupid about amnesty (including jeb).

So you are defending Obama's executive action as a good thing for the country? Doubling (actually quadrupling down) down on their (Reagan's and Daddy Bush's) mistakes is the smart thing to do or is this just "the pubs did it too"? Is that what you are saying 8th?

[Sooner8th]

Reagan did go through Congress as I said for the 3,000,000 he granted amnesty to in 1986. But, you are right about the mistakes both Reagan and Daddy bush made in trying to modify the 1986 law through executive action...really inexcusable and the whole law and subsequent modifications were mistakes as history has shown as Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese pointed out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=0

And W did try twice to get amnesty through congress in 2005 and 2007 and thankfully it was defeated both times. The Bush family is really stupid about amnesty (including jeb).

So you are defending Obama's executive action as a good thing for the country? Doubling (actually quadrupling down) down on their (Reagan's and Daddy Bush's) mistakes is the smart thing to do or is this just "the pubs did it too"? Is that what you are saying 8th?

No one is talking about dubya, it's HW we are talking about. YES I AM. He has the right to, just like bush and reagan did.

Tell me what is your plan for them? I have not heard a republican plan. You people did NOTHING in six years you had total control of the government.

[Sooner8th]

Reagan did go through Congress as I said for the 3,000,000 he granted amnesty to in 1986. But, you are right about the mistakes both Reagan and Daddy bush made in trying to modify the 1986 law through executive action...really inexcusable and the whole law and subsequent modifications were mistakes as history has shown as Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese pointed out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html?_r=0

And W did try twice to get amnesty through congress in 2005 and 2007 and thankfully it was defeated both times. The Bush family is really stupid about amnesty (including jeb).

So you are defending Obama's executive action as a good thing for the country? Doubling (actually quadrupling down) down on their (Reagan's and Daddy Bush's) mistakes is the smart thing to do or is this just "the pubs did it too"? Is that what you are saying 8th?

NO reagan did not -

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

[okie52]

NO reagan did not -

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

Nope Reagan did. 1986 which was the major portion of the amnesty...or are just going to overlook that? And I said he and Daddy bush were wrong to try to modify the law through executive action...did you miss that again too? And you still didn't answer the question...again..are you supporting amnesty after it failed 30 years ago because now it is an Obama action?

[badger]

It seems that presidential elections are more like team sports and fanbases and midterms are more voting on the issues. Rah Rah Dems rah rah Repubs when you have a guy to rally around a la highly paid college football coach. The rest of the elections are a bit less about team blue and team red and more about Obamacare increased my insurance premiums and my wages have been stagnant for years.

I guess that would make the midterms a non-revenue sport. Too bad for all the donors they still had to spend millions to win :P

[okie52]

Rah rah...go anti amnesty team!!!

Let me throw all supporters of amnesty, be they dem, pub, libertarian, or independent under the bus. Screw McCain, Rubio, W, Obama, Kennedy, Flake, Schumer, Menendez, Graham, et al that have Reagan's failure for guidance and choose to ignore it. Sheer stupidity.

[Sooner8th]

Nope Reagan did. 1986 which was the major portion of the amnesty...or are just going to overlook that? And I said he and Daddy bush were wrong to try to modify the law through executive action...did you miss that again too? And you still didn't answer the question...again..are you supporting amnesty after it failed 30 years ago because now it is an Obama action?

Hey okie52 - which part of —1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

You are trying to deny reality. REAGAN ACTED ON HIS OWN WHEN CONGRESS WOULD NOT PASS A BILL!

I did answer it, go look at my post. This is what I'm talking about, I answer a question and you people ignore my answer.

[Sooner8th]

Rah rah...go anti amnesty team!!!

Let me throw all supporters of amnesty, be they dem, pub, libertarian, or independent under the bus. Screw McCain, Rubio, W, Obama, Kennedy, Flake, Schumer, Menendez, Graham, et al that have Reagan's failure for guidance and choose to ignore it. Sheer stupidity.

YOU haven't answered my question, what is your plan that the republicans should pass?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The amnesty will take place soon, and nobody in government will make any significant effort to stop it. The cauldron keeps getting hotter, and boiling over is just a matter of time. I'm sure many thought it would have happened by now.

[FaninAma]

It will take place tomorrow night in prime time. The chickens of an uninformed electorate are certainly coming home to roost.

[okie52]

Hey okie52 - which part of —1986. Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

You are trying to deny reality. REAGAN ACTED ON HIS OWN WHEN CONGRESS WOULD NOT PASS A BILL!

I did answer it, go look at my post. This is what I'm talking about, I answer a question and you people ignore my answer.


The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act[1]

required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.
At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.[2]

Since you seem unable to understand your own posts I thought I would expand it for you so maybe you could digest that Reagan passed the bill through congress...Try to understand that. Did REAGAN pass the 1986 immigration law through CONGRESS. Yes or no?

His attempts to modify it through executive action (along with Daddy Bush's) were wrong...as I've repeated to you twice now. Try to grasp that. iT REALLY ISN'T THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

Sorry I missed your post about how you agree with amnesty. You want to blame the pubs for not passing it under W...hell I applaud them for it. Thankfully W didn't try to impose executive action on the country. AND WHAT IS THE DEMS EXCUSE FOR NOT PASSING IMMIGRATION REFORM WHEN THEY HAD SUPER MAJORITIES IN CONGRESS AND OBAMA IN THE WH? I applaud them for that too.

My plan would be temporary legalization for all illegals...6 months. If they are employed by the end of that time they can stay as long as their jobs last. If their jobs end they leave unless they have found another job to replace it. The employers would bear all costs for the illegals, taxes, healthcare, education, transportation, etc...while they are in the US. The taxpayers wouldn't be out a penny. Of course unlike that monstrosity of the senate bill, border security would be mandatory before any legalization would occur along with all employment verification (everify for one) systems necessary to insure employers are only hiring US citizens or eligible residents. Severe fines and/or jail time for employers that violate the hiring law.

Also increase H1-B visas to meet whatever hitech demands may be required. Eliminate the family reunification allowances under current immigration law and gear our legal immigration to meet the needs of the country on a merit basis rather than on family reunification which accounts for most of our legal immigration now.

And I couldn't care about which dem or pub supports amnesty...they are selling out the country. I'd call them idiots but many know exactly what they are doing...either for profit or for political reasons. Only an idiot would actually believe it was good for the country.

[Sooner8th]

Since you seem unable to understand your own posts I thought I would expand it for you so maybe you could digest that Reagan passed the bill through congress...Try to understand that. Did REAGAN pass the 1986 immigration law through CONGRESS. Yes or no?

His attempts to modify it through executive action (along with Daddy Bush's) were wrong...as I've repeated to you twice now. Try to grasp that. iT REALLY ISN'T THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

Sorry I missed your post about how you agree with amnesty. You want to blame the pubs for not passing it under W...hell I applaud them for it. Thankfully W didn't try to impose executive action on the country. AND WHAT IS THE DEMS EXCUSE FOR NOT PASSING IMMIGRATION REFORM WHEN THEY HAD SUPER MAJORITIES IN CONGRESS AND OBAMA IN THE WH? I applaud them for that too.

My plan would be temporary legalization for all illegals...6 months. If they are employed by the end of that time they can stay as long as their jobs last. If their jobs end they leave unless they have found another job to replace it. The employers would bear all costs for the illegals, taxes, healthcare, education, transportation, etc...while they are in the US. The taxpayers wouldn't be out a penny. Of course unlike that monstrosity of the senate bill, border security would be mandatory before any legalization would occur along with all employment verification (everify for one) systems necessary to insure employers are only hiring US citizens or eligible residents. Severe fines and/or jail time for employers that violate the hiring law.

Also increase H1-B visas to meet whatever hitech demands may be required. Eliminate the family reunification allowances under current immigration law and gear our legal immigration to meet the needs of the country on a merit basis rather than on family reunification which accounts for most of our legal immigration now.

And I couldn't care about which dem or pub supports amnesty...they are selling out the country. I'd call them idiots but many know exactly what they are doing...either for profit or for political reasons. Only an idiot would actually believe it was good for the country.

okie, okie, okie, just WOW. This is where I run into trouble on this board. I am going to be just as nice as I can force myself to be.

Look at the dates

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

These are two different things. Show me where I said that bill was not passed through congress. I have ALWAYS been talking about the 1987 part.

So you do agree with amnesty, huh. As for the employment verification and severe fines and/or jail time for employers a violate the hiring law, it's YOUR party who is against it!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The repubs apparently ARE NOT enough against it to do anything about stopping it. At least not yet. They ARE scared shi*less of the MSM. The country gets more effed up by the day. There will be further and more grave difficulties as time passes.

[okie52]

okie, okie, okie, just WOW. This is where I run into trouble on this board. I am going to be just as nice as I can force myself to be.

Look at the dates

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

—1987. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

These are two different things. Show me where I said that bill was not passed through congress. I have ALWAYS been talking about the 1987 part.

So you do agree with amnesty, huh. As for the employment verification and severe fines and/or jail time for employers a violate the hiring law, it's YOUR party who is against it!

Of course you were only talking about 1987 which is where I said Reagan was wrong to use executive action...twice. I guess you just couldn't understand yes...and you were just ignoring when Reagan passed the 1986 legislation that did go through congress.

No amnesty...just temporary work visas and the employers bearing all costs of the illegals...something the senate bill and all previous bills/attempts refused to do. There would be no path to citizenship nor any benefits given to illegals.

Oh Obama has challenged employers being punished for hiring illegals all the way to the supreme court.


Supreme Court upholds Arizona immigration law targeting employers

The ruling said Arizona could deny employers a business license after a second violation of its Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007. Also upheld was Arizona's requirement that employers check with the federal E-Verify program before hiring workers.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Arizona's licensing law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states," rebuffing challenges from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Obama administration and civil rights groups.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/26/nation/la-na-court-immigration-ruling-20110526


And Reagan's 1986 law made it pretty clear it was illegal to knowingly hire illegals...it was just never enforced.

You didn't answer why the dems didn't pass amnesty when they controlled congress and the WH? Ignoring it 8th. Let's not leave out the 2007 bill that went to the dem congress and failed with W ready to sign it too.


The bill's sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men's names, most commonly "Kennedy-Kyl". A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the 'Gang of 12'.[1] This group included, in addition to the aforementioned senators, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar and Arlen Specter. Senators Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and David Vitter led the opposition to the bill.[2][3]


The bills received heated criticism from both the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives rejected providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws. Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits.[15] Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants.

So you are for the taxpayers eating the costs of the illegals, eh 8th? Is that your plan?

[Sooner8th]

Of course you were only talking about 1987 which is where I said Reagan was wrong to use executive action...twice. I guess you just couldn't understand yes...and you were just ignoring when Reagan passed the 1986 legislation that did go through congress.

No amnesty...just temporary work visas and the employers bearing all costs of the illegals...something the senate bill and all previous bills/attempts refused to do. There would be no path to citizenship nor any benefits given to illegals.

Oh Obama has challenged employers being punished for hiring illegals all the way to the supreme court.



And Reagan's 1986 law made it pretty clear it was illegal to knowingly hire illegals...it was just never enforced.

You didn't answer why the dems didn't pass amnesty when they controlled congress and the WH? Ignoring it 8th. Let's not leave out the 2007 bill that went to the dem congress and failed with W ready to sign it too.





So you are for the taxpayers eating the costs of the illegals, eh 8th? Is that your plan?

Jesus, outside of schools, tell me what costs. And BTW they do pay taxes for schools. They rent and rent has taxes built into the cost of property taxes.

[okie52]

Jesus, outside of schools, tell me what costs. And BTW they do pay taxes for schools. They rent and rent has taxes built into the cost of property taxes.

Almost none of these "future citizens" will ever pay federal income taxes. They won't hardly pay any state income taxes either. These are low skilled poorly educated people. Most will be low income producers, low tax revenue generators but with permanent legal residency and citizenship they will be eligible for all of the government benefits...starting to get the picture? History shows that immigrants are one of the highest users of government benefits. The best thing about them as illegals is that many are (through fraudulent docs) paying into SS accounts they can never receive a benefit from . It doesn't matter if they rent or own a home they will never be paying their proportionate share of the costs to educate their kids (in most cases). Some will succeed but most won't cover their costs once they attain citizenship.

But you didn't answer the question as to why the dems didn't pass amnesty in 2010 and why they didn't support it in 2007?

[Sooner8th]

Almost none of these "future citizens" will ever pay federal income taxes. They won't hardly pay any state income taxes either. These are low skilled poorly educated people. Most will be low income producers, low tax revenue generators but with permanent legal residency and citizenship they will be eligible for all of the government benefits...starting to get the picture? History shows that immigrants are one of the highest users of government benefits. The best thing about them as illegals is that many are (through fraudulent docs) paying into SS accounts they can never receive a benefit from . It doesn't matter if they rent or own a home they will never be paying their proportionate share of the costs to educate their kids (in most cases). Some will succeed but most won't cover their costs once they attain citizenship.

But you didn't answer the question as to why the dems didn't pass amnesty in 2010 and why they didn't support it in 2007?

WOW that vein in your forehead is popping and you people accuse me of being angry when I type. You say future citizens, Obama isn't going to do that. They have to pass a law to do that. BTW 57% of AMERICANS want that. The reason we didn't pass it was because your party filibuster it. 5 red state dems voted against it, 3 republicans voted for it. It "lost" the vote 55-41. Yeah democracy. You keep talking about the costs, but all of your fears are contingent of them becoming AMERICAN CITIZENS. Tell me - is that what obama is doing?

What he is doing is the no different than what hw and reagan did. Get over it and stop reading rightwingnut websites designed to make you grab your pitchfork and torch.

[Soonerjeepman]

workers work for cash = no taxes...I know folks who hire them

kids eat free at school = fed money for food

[Sooner8th]

workers work for cash = no taxes...I know folks who hire them

kids eat free at school = fed money for food

beating my head against the wall, previous in this thread there was a complaint that these are low wage workers who wouldn't by paying income taxes anyway - 47% you know. They still pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax. You would know better than I do if they get free school lunches.

[Soonerjeepman]

they don't pay fed or state income tax..the ones I know make enough

[okie52]

WOW that vein in your forehead is popping and you people accuse me of being angry when I type. You say future citizens, Obama isn't going to do that. They have to pass a law to do that. BTW 57% of AMERICANS want that. The reason we didn't pass it was because your party filibuster it. 5 red state dems voted against it, 3 republicans voted for it. It "lost" the vote 55-41. Yeah democracy. You keep talking about the costs, but all of your fears are contingent of them becoming AMERICAN CITIZENS. Tell me - is that what obama is doing?

What he is doing is the no different than what hw and reagan did. Get over it and stop reading rightwingnut websites designed to make you grab your pitchfork and torch.

Ha...you mean Obamas goal isn't cittizenship? Hell it was the big precondition of dems and Obama on the senate bill that a pathway to citizenship was the first and foremost requirement...even over border security.

Americans want border security before any citizenship by an overwhelming margin...something the dems don't want. If you didn't also notice in the polls more Americans disapprove of Obamas executive action than approve of it.

The dems never even brought up immigration reform during Obamas 1st two years when they had the big majorities...didn't even try. They could get obamacare to pass into law and even passed crap and trade in the house but made no attempt on immigration. Quit hiding behind your left wing stupidity and admit the truth for a change. It doesn't matter whether the pubs or dems push it...bad policy is bad policy.

I hoped occasionally for you to look at what's good for the country rather than goosesepping to whatever orders you receive from the DNC. When Reagan and daddy bush did it it was a failure...get that...no ifs ands or buts about it...Failure!!! But now you want to defend Obama because he wants to **** things up too? Brilliant!!!

Obama had already used executive action before on dreamers...did u forget? Bitched about it back then too. Didn't see you comment on where Obama fought to keep from punishing AZ employers that hired illegals...doesn't fit into your normal DNC marching orders?

Most illegals have no fear of deportation ...they Disrupt congress and openly protest in public. Obama even instructed ICE to only deport criminals so this fear of deportation is just nonsense....so what's he doing it for 8th?

[yermom]

unless you plan on shooting them when they cross the border, securing it is going to be way too expensive, and not really accomplish much

it's just way too ****ty in South and Central America to keep them out

[okie52]

Land mines would be cheap and very effective.

Of course if the people from south of the border understand there are no jobs or benefits they will ever receive in the US they won't want to come here. Novel idea I know.

[FaninAma]

So yermom, you're ok with illegals coming in unimpeded and competing with the poor legal citizens of this country for jobs and social service resources?

[yermom]

i'm just stating facts.

i didn't say i was ok with anything.

of course, i don't know many people competing with illegals for anything

[FaninAma]

Then you must think government social service resources like Medicaid, Snap , public education and housing subsidies are infinite. You must also think that none of the poor citizens in this country legally work at low-skilled, low wage jobs.

[yermom]

so i'm to understand that housing subsidies, SNAP and medicaid go to illegals?

i don't quite get that they can go to school, but i can basically understand why.

[FaninAma]

so i'm to understand that housing subsidies, SNAP and medicaid go to illegals?

i don't quite get that they can go to school, but i can basically understand why.

Is that a serious question?

http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011


We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.


Illegal immigrants get entitlement benefits in one of 2 ways:\
1. By the use of forged or false identification
2. Through their children who were born here.

BTW, the US is in the very small minority of nations that confers citizenship on children simply because they were born in the country.

Also, why are we allowing LEGAL immigrants into the country that require so much public assistance(over 50%)? An immigration policy should be encouraging the entry of skilled, independent immigrants...not those that need subsidized by tax payer money.

[yermom]

so now we are talking about benefits for legal citizens?

personally, i'm a little tired of skilled immigrants taking our jobs. if they aren't moving them overseas, they are H1-B'ing them to undercut us here... who does that really help?

[Sooner8th]

so now we are talking about benefits for legal citizens?

personally, i'm a little tired of skilled immigrants taking our jobs. if they aren't moving them overseas, they are H1-B'ing them to undercut us here... who does that really help?

na, he just wants the constitution changed, you know the one conservatives love so much and should be followed to the letter, when they agree with it.

[FaninAma]

so now we are talking about benefits for legal citizens?

personally, i'm a little tired of skilled immigrants taking our jobs. if they aren't moving them overseas, they are H1-B'ing them to undercut us here... who does that really help?
An immigrant, legal or otherwise, is not a citizen. You need to ask the 1 per centers like Mark Zuckerberg and the big corporations represented by the national Chamber of Commerce why they want more H1-B visas. I agree that they shouldn't be undercutting US citizens wages.

[FaninAma]

na, he just wants the constitution changed, you know the one conservatives love so much and should be followed to the letter, when they agree with it.
What the heck are you talking about?

[Sooner8th]

What the heck are you talking about?


BTW, the US is in the very small minority of nations that confers citizenship on children simply because they were born in the country.

One of the foundations of our country - anyone can be an American.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

What the heck are you talking about?


BTW, the US is in the very small minority of nations that confers citizenship on children simply because they were born in the country.

One of the foundations of our country - anyone can be an American.

Anyone can....legally.

[FaninAma]

This was sent to me by a friend in an ealrier discussion about the inferred citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Sorry I cannot ascertain its original source.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to give former slaves citizenship after the Civil War including the right to due process. But, the original intent of the Amendment has been bastardized. The pertinent question is whether illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as written in the Constitution.
Numbers USA points out, scholars "have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil."
Numbers USA concludes that "The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship...Sen. Howard said that 'this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'"
Even though it is a misinterpretation of a Constitutional amendment passed by Congress 142 years ago, the Supreme Court has never decided the issue. It is now time to present the issue to the Supreme Court and hope that they reach the CORRECT decision that the children of ILLEGAL aliens born on U.S. soil does not entitle them to citizenship.

Another source:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html


The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences (http://www.soonerfans.com/consequences.html).)

List of countries that do and do not grant birthright citizenship. * Note: this list is not up to date. Canada rescinded birthright citizenship in 2010 so the US is the ONLY advanced nation that still allows this.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html