Alternative Immigration Reform Plan ...

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#297 Feb 16, 2013
DWG wrote:
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE: electiion is over, Mr. Romney sugest auto-deportation. It happens with e-verify program and many deal inside each state to enforce their law like Arizona law.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE: it is not the same , sometimes i miss something and it force me to send again one time this Topix Website note modernize or improve it for re-edit , SORRY if it BOTHER YOU REPEATEDLY, one time you like read and write, and know the best post to read can be the last one.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE:my point here is, we have to make a very loud sounds of Amnesty, to wake everybody that 2012 election is over, and this soverign nation have democracy and Republicans right now need to work for our country not just for a few people inside the party.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE: Once the proposal is not mine and yours, will be fine, American people already showed their power at 2012 election and people like you do not admit the fact that:
1) 47% of voter need respect ( Romney said they are countless ).
2) Second term of black man in the presidential office.
3) and many others resons we had watched during the 2012 campaign in USA.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE :2013 immigration reform with amnesty would make sense to others here if could you explain the weak technology at 1986 that not help manage that last Amnesty ?
1986 amnesty just make everything worst specially about drug war with a proliferation of quimical dependence into many young american during the course of 27 years of open doors ( south borders)
Requirements of 1986 amnesty:
a-made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
b-legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
c-legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982
Note: only About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status, and millions still undocumented here.
DWG WROTE : Again , explain please why 2013 immigration reform with amnesty would make sense to others here , if could you explain now the weak technology at 1986 that not help manage that last Amnesty ?
Note: remember 2000 biometric visa system.
Thanks
DWG
GOD BLESS YOU :-)
First, I may not define "amnesty" in the same way you do. Amnesty provides a pathway to citizenship, and I reject that solution for everybody who entered illegally aside from those who were brought here as children. Those folks had no choice. We have educated them, and this is the only home they know. Consequently, I would afford them a pathway contingent on them completing school and demonstrating good character (no criminal background, no felony convictions.) Everybody else I would NOT afford amnesty. Rather, I would provide them with the option to apply to remain as Temporary Guest Workers (see the first four posts of this thread). I would start by excluding anybody who had never paid taxes or who could not demonstrate continuous residency of no less than five years. Why? So that newer illegal arrivals can be removed from the workplace and unemployed Americans and legal immigrants can take those jobs. We have about 7 million Americans who are unemployed in the same income sectors where illegals ARE working. Let's assist them in their need, and that removes some of the burden on taxpayers as well.

So, legitimizing some segment of illegals who have worked and contributed doesn't mean affording them citizenship, or even as the President has recommended LPR status in 8 years. From that moment in time, those who achieve that status would be eligible for every social welfare program afforded American citizens: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public assistance programs, etc.. We can't even afford these things for our own citizens. Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?

Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#298 Feb 16, 2013
DWG wrote:
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE: electiion is over, Mr. Romney sugest auto-deportation. It happens with e-verify program and many deal inside each state to enforce their law like Arizona law.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE: it is not the same , sometimes i miss something and it force me to send again one time this Topix Website note modernize or improve it for re-edit , SORRY if it BOTHER YOU REPEATEDLY, one time you like read and write, and know the best post to read can be the last one.
<quoted text>
DWG WROTE:my point here is, we have to make a very loud sounds of Amnesty, to wake everybody that 2012 election is over, and this soverign nation have democracy and Republicans right now need to work for our country not just for a few people inside the party.
<quoted text>
.......
.DWG WROTE : Again , explain please why 2013 immigration reform with amnesty would make sense to others here , if could you explain now the weak technology at 1986 that not help manage that last Amnesty ?
Note: remember 2000 biometric visa system.
Thanks
DWG
GOD BLESS YOU :-)
First, I may not define "amnesty" in the same way you do. Amnesty provides a pathway to citizenship, and I reject that solution for everybody who entered illegally aside from those who were brought here as children. Those folks had no choice. We have educated them, and this is the only home they know. Consequently, I would afford them a pathway contingent on them completing school and demonstrating good character (no criminal background, no felony convictions.) Everybody else I would NOT afford amnesty. Rather, I would provide them with the option to apply to remain as Temporary Guest Workers (see the first four posts of this thread). I would start by excluding anybody who had never paid taxes or who could not demonstrate continuous residency of no less than five years. Why? So that newer illegal arrivals can be removed from the workplace and unemployed Americans and legal immigrants can take those jobs. We have about 7 million Americans who are unemployed in the same income sectors where illegals ARE working. Let's assist them in their need, and that removes some of the burden on taxpayers as well.

So, legitimizing some segment of illegals who have worked and contributed doesn't mean affording them citizenship, or even as the President has recommended LPR status in 8 years. From that moment in time, those who achieve that status would be eligible for every social welfare program afforded American citizens: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public assistance programs, etc.. We can't even afford these things for our own citizens. Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?

Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea.

“One Night”

Level 4

Since: Aug 12

It Just Disappeared

#299 Feb 16, 2013
Amnesty International Song ~ Break the Horizon
http://youtu.be/brNprO-Cxls
DWG

Everett, MA

#300 Feb 16, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>First, I may not define "amnesty" in the same way you do. Amnesty provides a pathway to citizenship, and I reject that solution for everybody who entered illegally aside from those who were brought here as children. Those folks had no choice. We have educated them, and this is the only home they know. Consequently, I would afford them a pathway contingent on them completing school and demonstrating good character (no criminal background, no felony convictions.) Everybody else I would NOT afford amnesty. Rather, I would provide them with the option to apply to remain as Temporary Guest Workers (see the first four posts of this thread). I would start by excluding anybody who had never paid taxes or who could not demonstrate continuous residency of no less than five years. Why? So that newer illegal arrivals can be removed from the workplace and unemployed Americans and legal immigrants can take those jobs. We have about 7 million Americans who are unemployed in the same income sectors where illegals ARE working. Let's assist them in their need, and that removes some of the burden on taxpayers as well.
So, legitimizing some segment of illegals who have worked and contributed doesn't mean affording them citizenship, or even as the President has recommended LPR status in 8 years. From that moment in time, those who achieve that status would be eligible for every social welfare program afforded American citizens: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public assistance programs, etc.. We can't even afford these things for our own citizens. Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?
Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea.
NTRPRNR1 Wrote: "...Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?
Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea....."

DWG wrote:....how I see you understand that things need to be done, and for sure I know you will be in alert after this 2013 amnesty to make sure e-verify works okay, no more cocaine, overstay visas, green card lottery, etc...

God Bless You and God Bless USA.

DWG
ima

El Paso, TX

#301 Feb 16, 2013
NON COMPLACENT TWINK wrote:
I made a long post earlier and it is not showing up. I don't have time to repeat it all so here is the shorter version:
We who want our borders and ports of entry secured and do not want illegal entry into this country to be rewarded are being out voted by our own representatives. The DREAM act is an example, Obama passed his own version and we had nothing to say about it.
We can stomp our feet and scream "NO" all day long but it is not going to have an effect because they are not listening.
I have said for a long time that there will be compromise whether we like it or not. The question now is will we have any input into what is compromised? If citizenship is given it will only hold the door open for the continuous flow to continue to come and wait for the next amnesty.
I don't want to see citizenship in this country become the open invitation it has been nor do I want to continue to see American citizens displaced by illegals in employment or denied benefits they need because an illegal has already gotten them.
It's been obvious for a long time that our government representatives are unwilling to back the buses up, load them and deport all the illegals. Do we continue to say "NO" while our government pushes Americans off the cliff or do we dig our heels in and push back? We have to face the fact that there will be an amnesty, let's try to get some of our views recognized.
The basic principles in the above proposal are far more in favor of American citizens then anything being put forth by those who are supposed to be representing us.
agree, this dictator isn't thinking of OUR COUNTRY'S WELL BEING....he is however dead set on destroying it and the destruction IS EVERYWHERE. HOW WILL WE RECOVER?

“Work hard at work worth doing.”

Level 10

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#302 Feb 17, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>First, I may not define "amnesty" in the same way you do. Amnesty provides a pathway to citizenship, and I reject that solution for everybody who entered illegally aside from those who were brought here as children. Those folks had no choice. We have educated them, and this is the only home they know. Consequently, I would afford them a pathway contingent on them completing school and demonstrating good character (no criminal background, no felony convictions.) Everybody else I would NOT afford amnesty. Rather, I would provide them with the option to apply to remain as Temporary Guest Workers (see the first four posts of this thread). I would start by excluding anybody who had never paid taxes or who could not demonstrate continuous residency of no less than five years. Why? So that newer illegal arrivals can be removed from the workplace and unemployed Americans and legal immigrants can take those jobs. We have about 7 million Americans who are unemployed in the same income sectors where illegals ARE working. Let's assist them in their need, and that removes some of the burden on taxpayers as well.
So, legitimizing some segment of illegals who have worked and contributed doesn't mean affording them citizenship, or even as the President has recommended LPR status in 8 years. From that moment in time, those who achieve that status would be eligible for every social welfare program afforded American citizens: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public assistance programs, etc.. We can't even afford these things for our own citizens. Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?
Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea.
An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible.
DWG

Everett, MA

#303 Feb 17, 2013
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible.
Teddyyr4me Wrote :An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible

DWG WROTE:.

Thee fact is that law could contribute a lot to stop abuses , 1986 was impossible to implement 100 % that amnesty with enforcement of immigration law and employment verification.

Their pawer were just to print green cards and socials security cards for 3 million undocumented.

If it happens today maybe employers like you have to use E- verify and biometric system to play by the same rules like eveybody. And no more undocumented in our. work force.

People in their country of origem will never plan to came here and work illegal, because was created a huge technology fence with name E-verify.

And for sure less drugs for your kids, because USA borders patrol know there are only drug dealers not a line with innocent who fight for a single dream to work hard and change the course of their life

Appreciate your attention
DWG
DWG

Everett, MA

#304 Feb 17, 2013
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible.
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible.
Teddyyr4me Wrote :An idiotic idea indeed. Frankly, it undermines the rule of law, and it would be irresponsible to allow this legislation to go through...as you said, we can't afford this, and what they could contribute would be negligible

DWG WROTE:.

The fact is that law could contribute a lot to stop abuses , 1986 was impossible to implement 100 % that amnesty with enforcement of immigration law and employment verification.

Their pawer were just to print green cards and socials security cards for 3 million undocumented.

If it happens today maybe employers like you have to use E- verify and biometric system to play by the same rules like eveybody. And no more undocumented in our. work force.

People in their country of origem will never plan to came here and work illegal, because was created a huge technology fence with name E-verify.

And for sure less drugs for your kids, because USA borders patrol know there are only drug dealers not a line with innocent who fight for a single dream to work hard and change the course of their life
Dee Dee Dee

Emmaus, PA

#305 Feb 17, 2013
The fact is that IF as you say the technology exist to implement 100% compliance then why is it not being used and what makes you think it will be used if amnesty is granted? E-verify has been blocked by the pro-illegals for years just as they have blocked immigration reform and all efforts at enforcement. There currently is no system in place to deal with 10 to 20+ million illegals and verify when they arrived, where they have worked, how much if any tax they have paid or even what crimes they have been convicted of. If the intent is to actually register, vet and verify compliance for this many people who have spent years concealing their true identities it will cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for each applicant. If back taxes and fines are to be collected the system for that will be even bigger and will spend several dollars for each dollar collected. There is also no system to deal with the lawsuits filed by those denied amnesty and there is no system in place to deal with the applicants that do not qualify and to deport them in an expedient manor. Obama’s uncle has managed to avoid deportation, live, work and drive for over 50 years even with a criminal record. What guarantee is there that those who do not qualify for amnesty will leave ever the country? Most likely they will blend in with the millions of illegals entering the country anticipating the next amnesty and continue as they have always done. What will be done with those who qualify but violate the conditions of amnesty? What will happen to those who do not qualify but have managed to produce children while here? The federal government has a long history of passing legislation without funding or even an estimate of the cost of the legislation and the 2013 amnesty will continue the tradition and the result will be that while those who qualify are granted amnesty those who do not will not be deported. They will continue to live here illegally with no fear of deportation let alone punishment and the tax payers will be the ones to finance a system that actually harms the average American taxpayer.
Any person who did not enter the country legally should not be qualified for amnesty. That would eliminate much of the problem since at least those who entered have a real identification that has been verified by their own government and there is a record of how long they have been here making verification of who they are and what they have done not only here but before they came here possible.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#306 Feb 17, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
The fact is that IF as you say the technology exist to implement 100% compliance then why is it not being used and what makes you think it will be used if amnesty is granted? E-verify has been blocked by the pro-illegals for years just as they have blocked immigration reform and all efforts at enforcement. There currently is no system in place to deal with 10 to 20+ million illegals and verify when they arrived, where they have worked, how much if any tax they have paid or even what crimes they have been convicted of. If the intent is to actually register, vet and verify compliance for this many people who have spent years concealing their true identities it will cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars for each applicant. If back taxes and fines are to be collected the system for that will be even bigger and will spend several dollars for each dollar collected. There is also no system to deal with the lawsuits filed by those denied amnesty and there is no system in place to deal with the applicants that do not qualify and to deport them in an expedient manor. Obama’s uncle has managed to avoid deportation, live, work and drive for over 50 years even with a criminal record. What guarantee is there that those who do not qualify for amnesty will leave ever the country? Most likely they will blend in with the millions of illegals entering the country anticipating the next amnesty and continue as they have always done. What will be done with those who qualify but violate the conditions of amnesty? What will happen to those who do not qualify but have managed to produce children while here? The federal government has a long history of passing legislation without funding or even an estimate of the cost of the legislation and the 2013 amnesty will continue the tradition and the result will be that while those who qualify are granted amnesty those who do not will not be deported. They will continue to live here illegally with no fear of deportation let alone punishment and the tax payers will be the ones to finance a system that actually harms the average American taxpayer.
Any person who did not enter the country legally should not be qualified for amnesty. That would eliminate much of the problem since at least those who entered have a real identification that has been verified by their own government and there is a record of how long they have been here making verification of who they are and what they have done not only here but before they came here possible.
Please read the FIRST FOUR POSTS of the thread which answers most of your questions. But, to start, you have to have a database in order for the technology to work. That is addressed at the beginning of the thread.

Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed. There is no discussion anywhere in the halls of Congress about deporting 11-12-20 million people. We can, however, deport 400,000 a year under the existing budget and court system. Nothing works without mandatory E-Verify and a tamper proof ID system and secure borders. Identification starts with application and continues over time via fingerprints of applicants entered into a national database. Tax filings confirm residence status.
DWG

Everett, MA

#307 Feb 17, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
The fact is that IF
Any person who did not enter the country legally should not be qualified for amnesty. That would eliminate much of the problem since at least those who entered have a real identification that has been verified by their own government and there is a record of how long they have been here making verification of who they are and what they have done not only here but before they came here possible.
My pleasure talk to you Mr.

Now, how I saw you always had sketch of your law from many years ago, like Leonardo da Vince sketch his parachute in 1483.

Immigration Law and Leonardo da Vinci sofer for the same problem, no money, no real interest and not enough tecnology.

I am sure if Leonardo da Vinci had enough money at that time for sure his sketch should work fine at 1483. because just in 2000 :

"Test on 2000 by Adrian Nicholas

http://www.leonardodavinci.net/parachute.jsp

Leonardo Da Vinci was proved right on Monday, June 26, 2000, some 500 years after he sketched the design for the world's first known parachute. A British man, Adrian Nicholas, dropped from a hot air balloon 3,000 meters (10,000 feet) above the ground, after ignoring expert advice that the canvas and wood contraption would not fly. Attempts to fully test the parachute in the UK earlier this year failed due problems of wind and safety near populated areas - it weighs a hefty 85 kilograms (187 pounds). But in the wide open spaces of Mpumalanga, South Africa, Mr. Nicholas safely floated down, saying the ride was smoother than with modern parachutes. Beautiful drop Heathcliff O'Malley, who photographed the drop from a helicopter, told BBC News Online: "It was amazing, really beautiful. But none of us knew if it would fold up and Adrian would plummet to Earth." He added: "It works, and everyone thought it wouldn't."

.
.
1) immigration law SKETCH.
2) Leonardo da vinci SKETCH.
.
.

1) 1986 they just sketch the perfect immigration law without technology management:

a) no biometric enforcement inside labor force. No computers at that time.

b) people with less than 5 years were not inside that law and still undocumented till today.

c) no enforcement ( boots on the ground and much technology ) around the borders and just 23 years later Mr. Obama administration did the first steps for sure.

2) 1483, The original design PARACHUTE was sketched by Da Vinci in a notebook in 1483.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening...

Though credit for the invention of the first practical parachute usually goes to Sebastien Lenormand in 1783, Leonardo da Vinci actually conceived the parachute idea a few hundred years earlier 1483 (200 years before)

Da Vinci made a sketch of the invention with this accompanying description: "If a man have a tent made of linen of which the apertures (openings) have all been stopped up, and it be twelve braccia (about 23 feet) across and twelve in depth, he will be able to throw himself down from any great height without suffering any injury."

2013 is the time to make the right Amnesty with real enforcement, today we have everything they did not have in the past.

Imagine, Leonardo da Vinci did a Parachute sketch at 1483, and at that time not exist baloon or a airplane . but after 200 years later Mr. Sebastien Lenormand in 1783 made it possible.

God bless you, and a lot peace in our XXI CENTURY.

Thanks
DWG
DWG

Everett, MA

#308 Feb 17, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Please read the FIRST FOUR POSTS of the thread which answers most of your questions. But, to start, you have to have a database in order for the technology to work. That is addressed at the beginning of the thread.
Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed. There is no discussion anywhere in the halls of Congress about deporting 11-12-20 million people. We can, however, deport 400,000 a year under the existing budget and court system. Nothing works without mandatory E-Verify and a tamper proof ID system and secure borders. Identification starts with application and continues over time via fingerprints of applicants entered into a national database. Tax filings confirm residence status.
NTRPRNR1 wrote :

Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed......
.
.
.
DWG write :

"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."..........
.
.Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey, c. February 1818[3]– February 20, 1895) was an American

THINK TANK
DWG
Married

Bryant, AR

#309 Feb 17, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>First, I may not define "amnesty" in the same way you do. Amnesty provides a pathway to citizenship, and I reject that solution for everybody who entered illegally aside from those who were brought here as children. Those folks had no choice. We have educated them, and this is the only home they know. Consequently, I would afford them a pathway contingent on them completing school and demonstrating good character (no criminal background, no felony convictions.) Everybody else I would NOT afford amnesty. Rather, I would provide them with the option to apply to remain as Temporary Guest Workers (see the first four posts of this thread). I would start by excluding anybody who had never paid taxes or who could not demonstrate continuous residency of no less than five years. Why? So that newer illegal arrivals can be removed from the workplace and unemployed Americans and legal immigrants can take those jobs. We have about 7 million Americans who are unemployed in the same income sectors where illegals ARE working. Let's assist them in their need, and that removes some of the burden on taxpayers as well.
So, legitimizing some segment of illegals who have worked and contributed doesn't mean affording them citizenship, or even as the President has recommended LPR status in 8 years. From that moment in time, those who achieve that status would be eligible for every social welfare program afforded American citizens: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public assistance programs, etc.. We can't even afford these things for our own citizens. Why should we be faced with additional millions to have to cover?
Worse, we're on the road to chain migration of millions more folks who have none of the skills (or, at least very few likely will) that we need in America. It's an idiotic idea.
I do like most of you plan but I don't agree with the child under 5 part just to let you some states like mine you are not able to get benefits till you are citzen no unemployment welfare ...
DWG

Everett, MA

#310 Feb 17, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
I do like most of you plan but I don't agree with the child under 5 part just to let you some states like mine you are not able to get benefits till you are citzen no unemployment welfare ...
Cricket 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
""undocumented people" It's OK to call them Illegal Aliens because that's what they are!"
Agree??
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Please read the FIRST FOUR POSTS of the thread which answers most of your questions. But, to start, you have to have a database in order for the technology to work. That is addressed at the beginning of the thread.
Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed. There is no discussion anywhere in the halls of Congress about deporting 11-12-20 million people. We can, however, deport 400,000 a year under the existing budget and court system. Nothing works without mandatory E-Verify and a tamper proof ID system and secure borders. Identification starts with application and continues over time via fingerprints of applicants entered into a national database. Tax filings confirm residence status.
DWG wrote:
<quoted text>
NTRPRNR1 wrote :
Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed......
.
.
.
DWG write :
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."..........
.
.Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey, c. February 1818[3]– February 20, 1895) was an American
THINK TANK
DWG
Cricket 23 wrote:
""undocumented people" It's OK to call them Illegal Aliens because that's what they are!"

NTRPRNR1 wrote :
Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed......
.
DWG wrote:
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."..........
.
.Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey, c. February 1818[3]– February 20, 1895) was an American.

THINK TANK
DWG

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#311 Feb 18, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
I do like most of you plan but I don't agree with the child under 5 part just to let you some states like mine you are not able to get benefits till you are citzen no unemployment welfare ...
What is your objection to children under five returning home with a non-qualified parent? Are you saying they should stay as well? At this point in time, all children born in America are Americans and entitled to welfare benefits which includes housing, food assistance and a stipend for those children. If you have one American born child, you are provided a home which we supply the child. As the care giver, you live there and eat the food that is supplied. At any rate, I'm just trying to understand you objection and what you think would be better IF we cut off the ability to apply to become a TGW only to those who have resided and worked here for no less than five years? There would surely be many who have children under age five but who don't meet that standard.
Quirky The Eye

Brighton, CO

#312 Feb 18, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>What is your objection to children under five returning home with a non-qualified parent? Are you saying they should stay as well? At this point in time, all children born in America are Americans and entitled to welfare benefits which includes housing, food assistance and a stipend for those children. If you have one American born child, you are provided a home which we supply the child. As the care giver, you live there and eat the food that is supplied. At any rate, I'm just trying to understand you objection and what you think would be better IF we cut off the ability to apply to become a TGW only to those who have resided and worked here for no less than five years? There would surely be many who have children under age five but who don't meet that standard.
You are Dilusional. That is the truth!
Married

Bryant, AR

#313 Feb 18, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>What is your objection to children under five returning home with a non-qualified parent? Are you saying they should stay as well? At this point in time, all children born in America are Americans and entitled to welfare benefits which includes housing, food assistance and a stipend for those children. If you have one American born child, you are provided a home which we supply the child. As the care giver, you live there and eat the food that is supplied. At any rate, I'm just trying to understand you objection and what you think would be better IF we cut off the ability to apply to become a TGW only to those who have resided and worked here for no less than five years? There would surely be many who have children under age five but who don't meet that standard.
Because they are USA citizens that's why I don't think they should be able to get any help only wic until they are 5 the usa birthrate is too low as it is the government says there are going to be more people retiring then people working so we need the young I think there should be cap for all USA citizens for entitlements for example can only count three children for any kind of help any more children your on your own on the third child government offers for a paid for surgery to tie the tubes that way it would discourage people who cannot afford children not to have to many just to collect help from the government I believe too three years or longer with proof that you paid your taxes and if you have kids you can stay but no help except for wic

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#314 Feb 18, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are USA citizens that's why I don't think they should be able to get any help only wic until they are 5 the usa birthrate is too low as it is the government says there are going to be more people retiring then people working so we need the young I think there should be cap for all USA citizens for entitlements for example can only count three children for any kind of help any more children your on your own on the third child government offers for a paid for surgery to tie the tubes that way it would discourage people who cannot afford children not to have to many just to collect help from the government I believe too three years or longer with proof that you paid your taxes and if you have kids you can stay but no help except for wic
Then, you're pretty much on the broad blanket amnesty program, and what was posted is an objection to that plan. The reasons why it is proposed is to do several things: make distinctions among those who entered illegally but who work and contribute and file tax returns, and those who only contribute to an underground cash economy that deprives us of tax contributions, along with those who suck off the teats of taxpayers to support the children they have but don't ever support themselves. It's another way of dealing with a problem that COSTS most Americans to subsidize these folks who only benefit about 10% of the population: business interests (increased profit) and the wealthiest who hire them for cheaper labor (nanies, gardeners, etc.). 90% of us are tasked with the burden of subsidizing illegal residents including the unemployed who must compete against them for jobs.

If the government wanted more LEGAL immigrants (population issue), they would streamline the legal entry process and the legislation being proposed would include mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land with brutal fines and punishments for offenders.
DWG

Everett, MA

#315 Feb 18, 2013
Quirky The Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
You are Dilusional. That is the truth!
I said election ias over for them !

Dwg
Married

Bryant, AR

#316 Feb 18, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Then, you're pretty much on the broad blanket amnesty program, and what was posted is an objection to that plan. The reasons why it is proposed is to do several things: make distinctions among those who entered illegally but who work and contribute and file tax returns, and those who only contribute to an underground cash economy that deprives us of tax contributions, along with those who suck off the teats of taxpayers to support the children they have but don't ever support themselves. It's another way of dealing with a problem that COSTS most Americans to subsidize these folks who only benefit about 10% of the population: business interests (increased profit) and the wealthiest who hire them for cheaper labor (nanies, gardeners, etc.). 90% of us are tasked with the burden of subsidizing illegal residents including the unemployed who must compete against them for jobs.
If the government wanted more LEGAL immigrants (population issue), they would streamline the legal entry process and the legislation being proposed would include mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land with brutal fines and punishments for offenders.
I do agree with a more laws but not e verify I think mandatory finger printing is better for all as for amnesty I do think if they wait for a 10 years to get citizenship plus pay fines and such the money would go back in the system background checks plus they would not be able to get government help besides wic I think it would help if the fines were hefty 10,000 in total for each person they can go on a monthly payment plan this would help buy the scanners they are not that expensive we have them where we work to clock in and the church my son goes to has them to sign in and out the children think about how much money the government could get 10 years no citizenship it would be a lot but if you want to go with just the guest worker plan without plan to citizenship they could be here for 30 years pay in to the system and never get to use it so If we are going to go that route then there had to be different rules such as they don't pay taxes and are not eligible for any benefits if they have kids 1,000 dollars per kid to go to school per year and a monthly fee that will go to police firefighters. If we are going to do the reform it needs to be fair on both sides don't you think or do you think it's ok to tax someone until they retire and not let them get any of the benefits I just want to be fair

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Protesters throw rocks, bottles at police outsi... 2 min Go Blue Forever 39
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 10 min anonymous 1,018
News Diane Dimond: Failure to act on immigration ref... 18 min commenters 1
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 35 min spud 8,598
News Air America Feds spent millions flying illegal ... 39 min tomin cali 1
News Donald Trump breaks with nation's only Latina g... 41 min spud 74
News U.S. deportation raids target Central American ... 43 min tomin cali 1
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 3 hr Flaming Star 141,178
More from around the web