The Truth About Immigration

[shag]

Where do u guys stand on mostly illegal Hispanics having their own "church" services within a (larger) local church? Where I attend, it is that way, the Hispanic pastor is legal, but many/most of the others hispanics are illegal. A few times, the men hispanics have married the American women in the church, have children, then got in trouble or whatever and got shipped back. Then the wife and children are "burned for playing with fire", and travel back and forth or whatever. One family divorced because of it.
I have unvoiced issues with it.


I was temporarily working in Chicago about 15 years ago, and we mentioned all the foreigners, mostly Hispanics tho, there to the forklift driver, and he said their goal was to take over our country thru reproducing with our american women, and if they were not willing to let them, they would do so via rape if thàts what it took. No lie. My co-worker almost beat the dog poop outa that guy.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It's amazing how such a tiny country can produce so many violent people, and how many of the violent ones are freely operating on American soil.

True but we have to realize too the genesis of that violent gang was a brutal war.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by shag

Where do u guys stand on mostly illegal Hispanics having their own "church" services within a (larger) local church? Where I attend, it is that way, the Hispanic pastor is legal, but many/most of the others hispanics are illegal. A few times, the men hispanics have married the American women in the church, have children, then got in trouble or whatever and got shipped back. Then the wife and children are "burned for playing with fire", and travel back and forth or whatever. One family divorced because of it.
I have unvoiced issues with it.


I was temporarily working in Chicago about 15 years ago, and we mentioned all the foreigners, mostly Hispanics tho, there to the forklift driver, and he said their goal was to take over our country thru reproducing with our american women, and if they were not willing to let them, they would do so via rape if thàts what it took. No lie. My co-worker almost beat the dog poop outa that guy.

Again. many of these people do have a "taking over" mentality. They have no conception of what being an American is all about, that this is a color blind issue. To them it is about race.

[n david]

Sen. Rand Paul is making a speech today, and showing support for a path to citizenship.

The so-called Gang of 8 issued a statement that their proposal will be submitted in April.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Sen. Rand Paul is making a speech today, and showing support for a path to citizenship.

The so-called Gang of 8 issued a statement that their proposal will be submitted in April.

It would be a good idea to be careful with headlines.

I have read the entirety of Rand Paul’s speech. I have spoken directly to the Senator.

No where in his speech does he use the word “citizenship.” In fact, the word citizen is only used once, in reference to Rand Paul himself saying, “As a teenager, I was not always the model citizen that I am today.”

"But in the overall context, which I confirmed with the Senator directly, he is talking about fixing the guest worker program, not giving citizenship."

It’s not a pathway to citizenship. That’s how Erica Werner interpreted it. It’s just making illegal aliens, legal aliens.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/19/e...than-is-there/

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would be a good idea to be careful with headlines.

Which is why I went to Sen. Paul's senate website and read his press release from 2/8/13, "Trust But Verify on Immigration Reform." ( It was also released as an op-ed piece in Wash Times, "Paul: From Illegals to Taxpayers, Make Path to Citizenship Conditioned on Border Security.") *Disclaimer: I believe the Wash Post added the title, since it's different than his office's release.

It absolutely includes a path to citizenship, even though it doesn't explicitly state it. I worked with immigration for 3 years (2000-2003), so I can see the path being allowed even though the word "citizenship" isn't being used.

The path is through the "green card," or as Sen. Paul states, "permanent legal status." Once they are able to obtain the green card, they are able to apply for naturalization (CITIZENSHIP) after 5 years.

I agree with Sen. Paul on this.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Which is why I went to Sen. Paul's senate website and read his press release from 2/8/13, "Trust But Verify on Immigration Reform." ( It was also released as an op-ed piece in Wash Times, "Paul: From Illegals to Taxpayers, Make Path to Citizenship Conditioned on Border Security.") *Disclaimer: I believe the Wash Post added the title, since it's different than his office's release.

It absolutely includes a path to citizenship, even though it doesn't explicitly state it. I worked with immigration for 3 years (2000-2003), so I can see the path being allowed even though the word "citizenship" isn't being used.

I agree with Sen. Paul on this.

There is always a path to legal citizenship in this country.

You're post, I responded to, came across as blanket amnesty, and that is not his plan.

He is saying that Congress would have to show that border security was progressing, annually, for five years in order for his other reforms to move forward. I'll not comment on details as I haven't seen the transcript yet.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You're post, I responded to, came across as blanket amnesty, and that is not his plan.

That is simply not true. My exact statement was that he supports a path to citizenship. I did not say anything about amnesty. That's your word, not mine.

Of course there's always a path to citizenship, but not for illegals, and not as proposed by Sen. Paul.

Also, once someone obtains LPR status, they can apply after 5 years regardless of benchmarks. They'd have to rewrite immigration law to change it, and that's not going to happen.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

That is simply not true. My exact statement was that he supports a path to citizenship. I did not say anything about amnesty. That's your word, not mine.

Of course there's always a path to citizenship, but not for illegals, and not as proposed by Sen. Paul.

Also, once someone obtains LPR status, they can apply after 5 years regardless of benchmarks. They'd have to rewrite immigration law to change it, and that's not going to happen.

I am saying it came across that way. We've been putting out fires on the Internet, started by the AP with Fox News ganging up against Rand, most of this morning and I just wanted to make sure you clarified. So, thanks for that.

There is a path to citizenship for illegals, They need to seek to get there legally. I'm sure that's what you were trying to say.

And you are right about the green card holder (LPR), that is immigration law.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is a path to citizenship for illegals, They need to seek to get there legally. I'm sure that's what you were trying to say.

Absolutely. Unfortunately we still have to deal with those here already. And it will have too include a way for LPR, which will allow them to eventually become citizens.

I do believe FoxNews and others are trying to wrongly call Paul's plan "amnesty" to try and drive a wedge and cause conflict.