Bush To Law Abiding Americans: F*ck You

[neophyte321]

Quote from dchang0:

This one rule would have prevented all of this mess if it had been in effect a long time ago.

If someone is legally visiting from another country and gives birth, is that child considered a US Citizen? I really don't know the answer.

I think you are required to violate our laws and climb over a fence in order to obtain ciitizenship.

This is an INSANE law. Unfortunately, there are plenty of f*cked up imbeciles in this country that will SCREAM bloody murder if the republicans attempt to do anything about it.

I can't even fathom attempting to understand some of these people ...

and they all hang out here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

frigthening to listen to some of these people ... "we should bend over and take it. you're right bending over and taking it sounds like a great idea ..."

 

[dchang0]

Quote from neophyte321:

If someone is legally visiting from another country and gives birth, is that child considered a US Citizen? I really don't know the answer.

I understand what you mean: could a German tourist couple visit Miami, give birth to a healthy baby boy, and apply for his citizenship?

I'm not absolutely certain, but yes, I believe that any child born on American soil is eligible for automatic citizenship.

Soldiers can probably provide some input on this, as babies born on military bases or embassies overseas (considered American soil) would also be eligible to apply.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


The obvious solution is to close the borders first, then crack down on employers, then crack down on benefits for illegals and thus reduce the scope of the problem. Then an donly then, look at a guest worker program.

Closing the borders is a huge underestimation by some; it is not as easy as one thinks. Coyotes are paid top dollars to sneak them in and they are coming in by the thousands. The biggest impact has to be to the wallet and the main reason they come. As long as the US craves cocaine it will find its way in....peace

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from dchang0:

An excellent idea that we can take a step further:

AUTOMATIC SUNSET PROVISIONS IN ALL SPENDING BILLS.

In other words, every spending bill, when created, has a built-in deadline and clearly-stated, objective goals. When the deadline is reached, the bill (now law), will automatically be shut down. It can only be reinstituted if: A) it met or exceeded its stated goals, and B) there are enough votes to reinstate it.

For example, say the President wants to spend $100 billion dollars on an four-year education initiative. The stated goal: improve 55% of all entering-high-school-student's math skills by at least one grade level within four years. (So, a kid entering high school would take five years worth of math in the space of four, while maintaining the same scores as he/she typically makes.) This could be statistically measured and tracked, and at the end of the four years, the program's results would be assessed. (There would of course be plenty of incentive for teachers, politicians, school districts and kids to cheat, so some statistical allowance would have to be made to discount the effect these cheaters have.)

If the program didn't meet or exceed its stated goals, it is shut down for good, with no chance of reenactment. If it did meet its goals, then it could be voted upon to be reinstated.

That way, we wouldn't be suffering now for well-intentioned but very harmful laws and programs set up decades ago. We'd be applying a requirement for real, objectively-measured RESULTS, just as a free market would. (BTW, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and criminal law are not "spending bills," and so would not be sunset.)

That is an excellent idea. However that would require:

1) Government accountability - Since when is the government ever accountable
1a) Government effeciancy - The government is one of the most ineffecient and slowest entities ever concieved.
2) Personal accountability - Not much of that in the States these days. too many people relying on governmnet to take care of them instead of taking care of themselves.
3) An educated pupulace - Unfortunately we are partly in the mess we are in because there are too many dumbshits voting these days. Democratic, rebublican, liberal, conservative whatever you want to label them, there are too many
4) An educated Congress - Same problem as in number 3.

I could probaly come up with several more.

 

[maxpi]

Quote from ElCubano:

Closing the borders is a huge underestimation by some; it is not as easy as one thinks. Coyotes are paid top dollars to sneak them in and they are coming in by the thousands. The biggest impact has to be to the wallet and the main reason they come. As long as the US craves cocaine it will find its way in....peace

Closing the border should be a piece of cake IMO. Put up surveillance cameras and a wall. If it is a 2000 mile wall with a camera every 500 feet that is 21,000 cameras. Use motion detectors to put the image up on the monitor along with GPS info so you don't have to have very many people on the monitors. Have a team of 3 border agents every 50 miles, they can go 25 miles either way in a matter of an hour or two in a 4wd, meanwhile monitor the perps with an overhead surveillance aircraft and send the agents to them with GPS. that would require 40 of the teams in 4wd cars. Have the National Guard keep a few people on alert for backup, it would be good practice for those jokers. That would require about 1000 people, tops.

When Mexico complains tell them to get their shit together and develope an economy and stop whacking off to the tune of socialism and elitism.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

READ MY LIPS: NO NEW AMNESTY
May 17, 2006


On the bright side, if President Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants ends up hurting Republicans and we lose Congress this November, maybe the Democrats will impeach him and we'll get Cheney as president.

At least Bush has dropped his infernal references to slacker Americans when talking about illegal immigrants. In his speech Monday night, instead of 47 mentions of "jobs Americans won't do," Bush referred only once to "jobs Americans are not doing" — which I take it means other than border enforcement and intelligence-gathering at the CIA. For the record, I'll volunteer right now to clean other people's apartments if I don't have to pay taxes on what I earn.

Also, someone must have finally told Bush that the point about America being a "nation of immigrants" is moronic. All nations are "nations of immigrants" — as Peter Brimelow pointed out brilliantly in his 1992 article in National Review on immigration, which left nothing for anyone else to say (Time to Rethink Immigration? ).

Of the "nation of immigrants" locution, Brimelow says:

"No discussion of U.S. immigration policy gets far without someone making this helpful remark. As an immigrant myself, I always pause respectfully. You never know. Maybe this is what they're taught to chant in schools nowadays, a sort of multicultural Pledge of Allegiance. ... Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground?"

Brimelow then ran through the Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman-French, Welsh and Celtic immigrant influences in Britain alone.

Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.

Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years — not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Ted Kennedy to stay in the Senate.)

Bush calls this the "rational middle ground" because it recognizes the difference between "an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years." Yes, the difference is: One of them has been breaking the law longer. If our criminal justice system used that logic, a single murder would get you the death penalty, while serial killers would get probation.

Bush claimed the only other alternative — I assume this is the "irrational extreme" — is "a program of mass deportation." Really? Is the only alternative to legalizing tax cheats "a program of mass arrest of tax cheats"?

This is the logic of the pro-abortion zealots (aka "the Democratic Party"): Either lift every single restriction on abortion or ... every woman in America will be impregnated by her father and die in a back-alley abortion!

Those are your only two answers? Do you need another minute?

How about the proposal made on Brimelow's Web site, Vdare.com, that illegal immigrants be told they have two months to leave the country voluntarily and not have their breaking of our immigration laws held against them when they apply for citizenship from their home countries — or not leave and be banned from U.S. citizenship forever?

Or how about just not giving illegal aliens green cards — as Bush is proposing — and deport them when we catch them?

Instead of choosing immigrants based on the longevity of their lawbreaking, another idea is to choose the immigrants we want, for example, those who speak English or have special skills. (And by "special skills" I don't mean giving birth to an anchor baby in a border-town emergency room.)

Why not use immigration the way sports teams use the draft — to upgrade our roster? We could take our pick of the world's engineers, doctors, scientists, uh ... smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts. Or, you know, whatever ...

As Peter Brimelow says in his book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, why not choose immigrants who are better than us?

Bush thinks it's not fair to favor people with special skills — a policy evidenced by his Harriet Miers pick.

How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Press "1" for English; press "2" for a new president ...

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE