What about children of legal aliens, such as those with permanent residency?
Are they to be declared stateless?
Isn't this movement to deny citizenship by birth a type of existential abortion?
Tsk, Tsk, you righties.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
texas republicans. you have to just shake your head and marvel at the ignorance.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
What about children of legal aliens, such as those with permanent residency?
Are they to be declared stateless?
Isn't this movement to deny citizenship by birth a type of existential abortion?
Tsk, Tsk, you righties.
Quote from good ole boy:
What about children of legal aliens, such as those with permanent residency?
Are they to be declared stateless?
Isn't this movement to deny citizenship by birth a type of existential abortion?
Tsk, Tsk, you righties.
The way most countries handle this is that those children would take the citizenship of their parents. I haven't resarched it, but I am not aware of any other countries with a birth ciitizenship provision like we have.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
How much vote fraud is too much? We had a Senate election stolen in Minnesota because of it. Isn't that enough?
It is perfectly obvious that one of the dem's strategies is to encourage massive illegal voting. Why they want to make it easier for people to violate the law and vote illegally is something they should have to answer for.
Obvious? To who? You make absolutely stupid statements and expect them to fly because you say obvious?
Voter fraud is just an excuse to disenfranchise. I don't want to sound like a talking point, but it's OBVIOUS that if Conservatives thought they had the support of more than half of America, they would not fight to restrict voting. Ridiculous.
We had Presidential election stolen by the SCOTUS - isn't that a bit worse than a possible .000001% of the vote being cast incorrectly? Illegals aren't going to risk voting, stupid idea.
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Best response to this article:
Frankly, if you don't have an ID in the year 2012, and getting a free one is 'burdensome,' then it's absolutely in society's best interests that you don't vote!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/free-voter-ids-still-burdensome-poor-people-says-164843705.html
This promotes a defacto caste system.
Quote from mrbill:
Obvious? To who? You make absolutely stupid statements and expect them to fly because you say obvious?
Voter fraud is just an excuse to disenfranchise. I don't want to sound like a talking point, but it's OBVIOUS that if Conservatives thought they had the support of more than half of America, they would not fight to restrict voting. Ridiculous.
We had Presidential election stolen by the SCOTUS - isn't that a bit worse than a possible .000001% of the vote being cast incorrectly? Illegals aren't going to risk voting, stupid idea.
I haven't seen any real proof about all these people who will be "disenfranchised." It's easier to vote in this country than buy a Happy Meal. It's about as credible as Jesse jckson's claims that police roadblocks were put up to keep blacks away from the polls in florida in 2000.
The reason there is not more evidence of illegal voting is that most of it occurs in states or counties where the local government encourages it. They don't want to police it, which is why state and national laws are needed.
Democrats never shy away from passing useless symbolic laws that will have no effect when it involves pandering to their base, eg "hate" crime laws, which criminalize conduct which is already criminal. They want to cripple our ecoonomy over ridiculous fears of global warming. Yet they object to protecting our most important civic responsibility, voting. You don't have to wonder too hard to know why theywould want to make it harder to stop illegal voting.
And please get over the 2000 election. Who went to court instead of accepting the legitimate vote count? Gore. He tried to steal the election with the aid of a partisan Florida Supreme Court, which was ignoring state law. Somehow that was acceptable but the Supreme Court decision wasn't? Please.