Illegal immigration has become one of the most contentiously debated issues, and the much-needed solution is far off. Tuesday night, President Barack Obama outlined the problems that our nation faces in his State of the Union address.
One of those problems is the DREAM Act, which is one the most prominent pieces of legislation within the debate on immigration.
Currently, five states — Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — are putting forward a somewhat new, basic idea; a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment that would declare that children born in this country aren’t considered citizens if their parents are illegal immigrants.
Despite over 100 years of accepted interpretation, those five states feel that it is time for a change.
The approach taken seems rational. Numerous countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, have adopted similar citizenship laws in the recent years, many requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent legal resident before a child can be considered a citizen, and it continues to thrive since its adoption.
Why is America unable to do the same?
It is said that it’s unconstitutional to change the laws for every state, though after the 14th Amendment was first adopted in 1868 nothing about it was considered unconstitutional.
It also important to note that the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to guarantee rights of freed slaves after the Civil War.
Times are changing, and Amendments should change with the them when necessary. It is not unconstitutional, or at least it shouldn’t be, for a country to decide who is allowed to become a citizen and the process in which they become one.
When discussing this approach, one question that arises is this: If the legislation succeeds and the interpretation makes it past the Supreme Court, what becomes of the DREAM Act, a solution that continues to come closer to approval?
The ensuing battle between these two solutions appears to boil down to whether you are for or against immigration and its perceived effect on the economy.
Those who support the DREAM Act and oppose reinterpretation often believe what our struggling economy needs is growth, which immigration provides.
While those for reinterpretation believe that the DREAM Act would only encourage the 14th Amendment’s continued abuse and bypassing of immigration laws despite the pathway to citizenship that already exists.
But regardless of the good intentions of the DREAM Act, we cannot provide a better pathway to citizenship without setting and enforcing acceptable standards, discussing the 14th Amendment, and remembering that illegal immigration is, as the name implies, illegal.
The idea that America was built upon immigrants is irrelevant.
However, this doesn’t mean we should no longer attempt to provide opportunities to those looking for better lives.
As it stands now, our policies and methods regarding immigration are slow, ineffective, and sometimes downright unacceptable for even those who arrive through legal methods.
The effort to bring the reinterpretation to the Supreme Court is a welcome occurrence that will help settle an issue that has been floating and left unsettled for too long.
Do you know why so many turn to illegal immigration? It's not to bypass some easy to follow laws. After thousands of dollars, years of waiting, and lots of red tape you MIGHT become a legal citizen assuming the US wants you for work, you have family here, or the cap hasn't been reached. Otherwise, the US doesn't care why you want to immigrate. Even if it's for political persecution like so many people who are fleeing Mexico now (to escape the clusterf@ck known as the drug war which by the way, we're helping to keep going).
I agree. Your correct in your beliefs from the red tape, to the drug wars. That point was touched on in passing by the article. "As it stands now, our policies and methods regarding immigration are slow, ineffective, and sometimes downright unacceptable for even those who arrive through legal methods."
Necessary steps will continue to be slow or nonexistent until it's established what exactly the nation wants our stance on immigration to be, because everyone seems to be conflicted with that, otherwise the DREAM Act might have passed last December. Or perhaps the Superme Court will reaffirm the established belief that if being born in America will always make you an American bottom line.
It doesn't seem like the process for legal immigration, or acceptance for people escaping persecution will be dealt with until illegal immigration is. And like you said, right now the U.S. doesn't care why you immigrate, everyone is lumped together when they shouldn't be and immigrants circumstances should be taken into account. Sadly at the moment that's just not the way it is.
Americans don't care why someone wants to immigrate. We have 308,000,000 U.S. citizens. That is enough. It is our right, as a sovereign nation to decide who, how many and if any, immigrants can come in. This is our home. We are full up. Who gets to decide that? We the people, citizens, of this sovereign nation, called the United States of America.
It is time for the world, to stop depending on the U.S. to solve it's problems. It is time, to say to the world, "Enough, is enough. Stay in your country and solve your problems there."
The US needs to stop making problems in the world, and maybe clean up it's current messes.
Iraq, Afghanistan, post- NAFTA Mexico, post- CAFTA Central America, virtually every international trade partner, the poor people and people of color who are currently and have been historically oppressed in this country, and way too many to list.
There's this silly perception that the US actually comes to the rescue of people, when actually the government and industry of this country largely use exploitation as their favorite hobby.
The US needs to stop doing that, and by looking at what policies caused so much immigration, and the fact that the US relies on exploited labor from other countries for its economy to function actually change its course of action on the immigration front.
stop depending on america to fix problems in your country that america engineered!
The American taxpayer needs to be alerted of the terrible toll of illegal immigration fiscal impact on federal, State and municipal government public services. We need more Rep. Elton Galligey chairman of a congressional immigration panel believe that the American people deserve tougher immigration laws and that immigration laws are being neglected by States and their counties. Illegal aliens are reducing the retirement payments, pensions to our Senior Citizens. At http://tinyurl.com/5u8wc2n According to the Journal of American (the report on Illegal Aliens and American medicine) http://tinyurl.com/o6r27 defines the statement as a monolithic non-reimbursement concern of hurting hospitals across the United States. Illegal aliens are costing more than the prior Iraqi war as seen here, http://tinyurl.com/4ss2hzf Another argument is the education system , that has become a massive bottomless pit of money, for schooling the children of illegal immigrants http://tinyurl.com/5nk42a
Then we have the illegal alien crime wave adding to our own criminals spreading in every neighborhood across this nation. http://tinyurl.com/4hvzphx These are reports with reputable sources that are just the tip of the iceberg that every taxpayer should read. http://tinyurl.com/6h238a2 and http://tinyurl.com/6aupx9w Removing illegal immigrants from America that we are feeding, housing and giving free hospital access, would go a very long way in saving bankruptcies in state treasuries and the federal failure of placing American taxpayers before nationals of other corrupt countries. Call your Senator or politician about illegal Immigration, and Amnesty at Washington switchboard to be connected at 202-224-3121. The nation should only welcome highly skilled workers, and denounces any Liberal progressive lawmaker who sees the invasion as great generator of cash for the economy.
When every day US citizens and legal non-citizens who are rightfully here have been uprooted from their jobs, only to find an illegal alien has stepped into that spot lowering wages. In these type of circumstances it is the displaced workers duty to report this suspicious activity to ICE. Once the –REAL–DOUBLE –FENCE is constructed and every inch of the border region is sealed by stationed troops , without restrictions on any access, then a uniform Guest Worker program can be introduced, without the rampant fraud that exists right now after interior and border enforcement. NumbersUSA.
No copyright ever. Distribute freely.
lol you cited jeff rense
I know, right?
A critical fact overlooked by Marcus Smith is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether a child born to illegal aliens should be given automatic citizenship. The 1898 case involving Kim Wonk Ark dealth with his parents who were LEGAL residents of the United States. No changes to the 14th Amendment are needed. All that is necessary is a law requiring that at least one parent be a citizen or LEGAL resident and then let the courts decide.
Dave Gorak
Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration
La Valle, WI
It's true; the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether a child born to illegal aliens should be given automatic citizenship, which is why the five states are pushing the idea in hopes the U.S. Supreme will rule on it. The fact that it has not been ruled on is why its heralded as a legal precedent. It was not overlooked, and if it wasn't specifically stated then it was at the very least implied.
It is an amendment issue, and it's not a matter of changes to the 14th amendment exactly, but in part whether a law declining children born from illegal immigrant’s citizen status is constitutional. Forgive me but I don't understand how the case involving Kim Wong Ark has anything to do with this argument, it's not mentioned in the article and as you said they were legal residents, and this battle is over children with illegal parentage
.
The Supreme Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) that an Indian although born in the US was still not a citizen of the US because he owed allegiance to his tribe, and didn't owe complete and immediate allegiance to the US. The US Congress granted citizenship to all Indians through the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924." I don't know if there has ever been a Supreme Court decision regarding to a challenge to the "Indian Citizenship Act or not, but it surely seems that Congress can change a Supreme Court decision by legislation at least in this area of citizenship. While we know that the Supreme Court is quite capable of creating rights our of whole cloth, it also on occasion follows the clear intent of the Constitution and its amendments. This issue is not a slam dunk one way or another.
But he has a very valid point. So much for you people who claimed to be so enlightened. I have seen more of your type who may be book smart but sure don't have a lot or any common sense. For that matter he may be Alumni for starters. Second this issue does not just affect us here in Houston but all of us in this country.
You know what is even funnier Bren. Many of those people trying to leave or come here are running from governments that make our "meddling" look minuscule to how they run the place. And in many they are socialist based governments.
Actually, they are authoritarian governments with militaries funded and trained by the US government, and other military interests.
http://www.soaw.org/
What, you have a problem from another state?
No it's not that. I shouldn't have said to censor him.
This article is just ridiculous, so his constitutional argument was problematic. I guess it's good he identified himself as part of an organization from out of the state, but his argument is weak, and organizations like his that spread this type of information are dangerous.
There was a time when people born in this country weren't citizens. These people were non-white and/or women. Do we want to go back to a time when some people born in this country are citizens and some are not? Even if it's not strictly race, though there would be racial consequences, do we want to have apartheid? How does a person choose how they were born in this country, how does a person determine their parent's status before even being born? Should we have 1/2 citizenship laws for people with one documented parent, like 3/5 laws during Slavery?
So someone came to this country with a spouse and neither had status. They had a child, who is not a citizen. This person has a child with an immigrant, and even though this child was born in this country with parents in this country, they are not a citizen.
How does this make sense?
Apartheid? 1/2, and 3/5 of a person laws? On what do you base these ideas? No offense but that sounds like pure babble.
As for this "Should we have 1/2 citizenship laws for people with one documented parent, like 3/5 laws during Slavery?"
I refer to the article because it answers this exact question:
"The approach taken seems rational. Numerous countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, have adopted similar citizenship laws in the recent years, many requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent legal resident before a child can be considered a citizen, and it continues to thrive since its adoption."
One parent a citizen or permanent legal resident. If that standard is met the child is a citizen bottom line. Clearly stated. Not 1/2 not 3/5. A full fledged citizen.
Apartheid? That's a fair comparison. Because we all can clearly see the distinct resemblance of Apartheid in the UK and Germany and Canada who have these polices. Because America, and the former countries have or will start creating racially segregated sports associations, racially segregated beaches, and intentionally segregated cities. Guerrilla factions are being formed , the jailing of non violent dissidents and journalists will or are occurring on a national scale and trade embargo will be placed on our country because the world can clearly see how awful the policies of our country are and how horribly we are abusing our citizens. I doubt it.
If anything is ridiculous it would be your arguments. You might as well take the leap further and start comparing this to Hitler's Final Solution.
This isn't a matter of caste system, racism, or horrendous intention of wanting people to suffer. Illegal immigrants are illegal, however horrible their plight may be, the fact remains – this has to be understood and dealt with.
Is America entirely innocent? Of course not. Does it need to provide opportunities for immigrants who have already made a foothold, and the children who are declared citizens at this moment? Yes, because everyone suffers if we leave people to rot, die senseless death, and live out essentially hopeless lives.
The problem with you is that if it was apartheid then it would have to be against legal citizens. First off they are breaking the law. Can we agree to that first? If not then the conversation becomes futile.
And that time has come and gone. What you are referring to was corrected with the 14th amendment after the bloodiest conflict in American history. Have there been problems, trips and hiccups along the way? Yes, but to throw open the doors to anyone is not the solution.
It's not that simple. Laws are written by some people, but when people had no influence on the laws, they have no democratic validity.
By your rationale, during the Jim Crow era, the protesters who sat in at lunch counters and refused to move to the back of the bus when told to, broke the law, and deserved to be punished. I disagree with that. These laws were in place, but the oppressed people who were effected by the laws had no say in how the laws were created.
I don't have time to argue with you any more about this, but i would reccomend watching this short movie about immigration. It's a very good educational tool.
The people you are refering to are not citizens of this country for starters. Those you refer to in the jim crow era where citizens who had an unjust law imposed upon them. The difference you seem to ignore is that those who are here illegally are not citizens of this country. Of course they would not have a voice or choice, they are not citizens and therefore do not have that say. We who are do.
That little video is the most biased and liberal propaganda I have seen.
Like the cats alluded to. The definitions of citizenship are not handed down by God, or whatever innate force one believes in, they are created by people with power. The Jim Crow situation only occurred after non-citizens, enslaved and other people of color, broke laws to get more rights than they had. So were those laws justified when they existed? Did the enslaved people deserve to be punished? Were women citizens before 1919? Did they deserve to be punished for breaking laws and trying to vote and have their human rights before then?
Decedents of settlers, and other (mostly white, mostly male, mostly heterosexual, mostly wealthy) former immigrants have decided hypocritically that one group of immigrants is illegitimate, while they are "legitimate immigrants" without actually owning up to history, especially the history of colonization (you know people were here before white people, and they are real people, not inferior because white people took over).
Call that video biased or whatever, but the arguments in it are based in research and logic, so if you have research and logic to disprove what was presented there, let's see it. Assertion of what media pundits said is neither research or logic.
Below are some equations to avoid when putting forth such an argument.
Breaking laws = Bad, (is not logic, because so many celebrated human rights heroes broke laws, and if you are patriotic, the revolution was illegal.)
Laws = Fair and/or Good and/or Just (is not logic, because there are so many examples of unfair, unjust and bad laws in our and the world's history)
MY Definition of Citizenship [is greater than] Your definition of Citizenship (is not logic, again borders are drawn by those who have robbed, cheated and stolen enough to get to draw them, so are definitions of who "deserves" to live within these borders and who does not.)
Let's see what you have.
Ok lets play that little game.
Breaking laws = bad(murder is against the law is that not bad? Taking things that do not belong to you is that not bad? Rape is against the law is that not bad?)
We form a government for the purpose of creating and maintaining society through laws. Yet we as a society have come to some consensuses through our representatives what laws are needed to sustain our country. From your view of a bleeding heart it is unfair but life is never fair.
Those jim crow laws were made against citizens not non citizens or did you forget that the laws were created after the civil war and the 14th amendment that corrected that problem?
The funniest thing is the immigrant definition that they try to pull. My ancestors were immigrants but I am not. Why? Because I was born here as a citizen. Because my parents and grandparents were legal citizens.
I love your inflammatory and assumptions that all "white" people think that those originally here we inferior. For your claims of tolerance you are very judgmental in your statements.
Is it not in the best interests of the country to know who is coming to this country? What harm they may bring or carry with them to protect the whole of our country?
We are a sovereign nation and our government is responsible for the safety and it's protection of its citizens. To do so through several measures. One of them being the flow of people coming into the country to prevent an overload on our resources which others here have pointed out are beginning crack under the strain.
Have a good one for you, did you know that once TB was non-existent in this country but now is on the rise again.
"In 2009, the TB rate in foreign-born persons in the United States (18.7 cases per 100,000 persons) was approximately 11* times greater than that of U.S.-born persons (1.7 cases per 100,000 persons). In 2009, approximately 59% of all TB cases in the United States occurred in foreign-born persons, unchanged from 2008."
From the statement above from the CDC we can see that part of a LEGAL process for entering and being a citizen of this country is for you to have a health screening for the public good. For that matter is has been reported cases that TB resistant to drugs is on the rise with many cases coming from those who are foreign.
But I can already guess that you'll come back with that it is unfair and mean to do that to people.
OK, so the point of that equation was to say that things are not bad because they are agains the law. Things can be bad, and the same things can be against the law, but it can also be true that bad things are not against the law, and things that are not bad are against the law.
Rape is bad, and murder is bad, because both hurt people. Yes they are against the law, and those are good things to have against the law. Once upon a time, like one or two hundred years ago, raping and murdering certain people, especially those people who were enslaved, was not a crime. Were either of those things OK back then? No. If rape and murder were legal right now, would they be OK? No.
Same sex marriage is and, if you're a little behind the times, interracial marriage was, against the law, but neither of those things are bad because they don't hurt anyone.
When you're talking about immigration, it is different, but no less clear to me. What causes more pain: for someone to not follow procedure and to come into another country without the correct paperwork, or for someone to follow procedure and stay in a place causing themselves, their family and/or their children to starve or otherwise suffer? As a compassionate human being, I think it's worse for people to suffer and/or die than to avoid that. One must come to the conclusion that the state of the world is that many economic refugees are forced to leave the place where they come from to survive or to be stable, and thus sometimes they are forced to go, even if some laws say they shouldn't. Such are the politics of starvation.
Do you deny that this country has a racist history? Do you deny that there have been laws denying non-white people rights?
I didn't say "ALL" white people anywhere, but I do say some white people (and these people were only white, and only male for that matter, because that's what the laws of the time required) were the people to not only illegally immigrate to someone else's land (before Europeans were here, there were Karankawa or Atakapan people in the Houston area, with their own civilizations, laws and customs), but also completely ignored virtually ALL of those peoples' societal norms and laws and killed the vast majority of them.
These invading people were European, and largely saw the non-European people who were on the land first as racially inferior, and the other non-European people who were kidnapped and forced into bondage were seen by these Europeans in similar ways. Those are well documented historical occurrences, and that's where racism comes in, and permeates to this day.
Your ancestors were either these people, or people who came into this illegal situation created by these barbaric people. Mine are too, so I'm not saying it's your fault, but it's something we have to recognize. So while your parents and grandparents might have been "legal citizens" by the definition of a nation that ruthlessly conquered/murdered many other nations, they, or the people whose actions they benefitted from were certainly not legal by the definition of the people who lived here before them. Such is the way of colonization.
For "doing what's best for the nation as a whole": I'm part of this nation, and what you're proposing is not what's best for me. It's not whats best for the people whose backs this economy is build on either, so I have to fundamentally disagree with that point.
As far as resources, income differentials cause a far larger strain on resources than poor people struggling to survive. Rich people waste more, which is "legal" according to your definition, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, is very wrong because their waste and excess is directly correlated to other people's suffering and lack of essential resources.
Disease spreading sucks. I wish that people weren't being infected with these diseases. Is it worse that documented people in the U.S. are being infected, than when people from other countries are being infected? No. Because documented U.S. inhabitants are not racially or nationally superior to anyone else, or otherwise less deserving of disease, rather disease sucks for everyone no matter who they are. If I were to think that some people deserved disease more than others do, I would call that prejudice.
A very simpleton way of thinking but if it works for you then.
And we in the present have corrected that issue from 100+ years ago.
Yes it is clear, you are very emotional and seem to be only thinking with them. It is sad that in some cases those people are in that scenario but it is still not right for them to break our laws.
Do you deny that this country has a racist history? Do you deny that there have been laws denying non-white people rights?
No, but you seem to deny all the great things this country has accomplished. Do you deny the deaths Americans suffered to bring about to right the wrongs? All you seem to focus on is nothing but the negative and keep bringing up the past with no solutions besides to cry and give everyone a free pass for the present.
Again that was the past and this is the present. There is nothing that can be done to change that. Let us compare apples to apples and not mangos to oranges. Besides if you want to start, let us remember who sold the slaves to the merchant men sailing along the African coast first. Sure wasn’t a European.
It is a sad scenario that has been repeated through history, but you comparing what happened with what we are doing today is asinine. We are not murdering these people. We are not invading them or taking their land away. We are talking about how our borders are not being secured and that people are crossing over illegally.
Going on about what happened a couple of hundreds of years ago to today is not the same. We are not talking colonization, that is different than what we have today about illegal immigration.
You seem to miss understand what I am referring to about resources. I am referring to the fact that by letting all of them just come on in we will put the country’s already strained infrastructure to the verge of collapse. With people we cannot support. But I am glad that you are proving yourself the every bit of a socialist.
Disease spreading sucks. I wish that people weren't being infected with these diseases. Is it worse that documented people in the U.S. are being infected, than when people from other countries are being infected? No. Because documented U.S. inhabitants are not racially or nationally superior to anyone else, or otherwise less deserving of disease, rather disease sucks for everyone no matter who they are. If I were to think that some people deserved disease more than others do, I would call that prejudice.
The Citizenship Clause states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
"subject to the jurisdiction" means they do not benefit under "diplomatic immunity". If you wish to extend diplomatic immunity to all of our illegal ambassadors then please go ahead. I am sure that the criminal and civil justice system would thank you.
You have fair points, I'm going to dispute that.
"Your problem is that you're not asking why people are trying to get over here. The economic desperation felt in much of the global south, though caused largely by US policies and those of other developed/neo-imperialist countries, is completely ignored when talking about it."
In response to this I'll say the the same thing I said to Rude in an earlier comment and in the article:
Article: "As it stands now, our policies and methods regarding immigration are slow, ineffective, and sometimes downright unacceptable for even those who arrive through legal methods"
Comment: "And like you said, right now the U.S. doesn't care why you immigrate, everyone is lumped together when they shouldn't be and immigrants circumstances should be taken into account. Sadly at the moment that's just not the way it is."
I agree with your views and care about immigrants circumstances when discussing illegal, and you made it clear that you do as well – but that and unfair treatment to illegal immigrants not the main issue that's being addressed in this article, nor is that the main issue being pressed by Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The article addresses if the law is constitutional and if the idea, while not being a perfectly fair approach is a rational, possible approach to illegal immigration, which it is as described in the article. Never did I say it was the best solution, and we should completely disregard illegal immigrants but that it is a possible solution.
As I've stated before, it seems unlikely in that any progress will be made setting better standards and creating better methods for immigration, both legal and illegal, and citizenship until these conflicting ideologies are addressed, whether the movement fades out or is settled by a Supreme Court ruling on the 14th amendment.
Alot of people are overlooking one simple fact. ( ILLEGAL ) immigration. It is breaking the law. It's not racist, it's not heartless, or mean to want to enforce our laws. If my family was homeless and starving, could I break into someone's home and steal their food and sleep in their beds. No that would be illegal entry, I would go to jail and my children would be taken from me, it would NOT matter what my reasons were for doing that.
Here's how I see it. There are plenty of reasons why people want to immigrate to the United States illegally and that is a big problem. There are many ways of addressing that by making it easier for people to legally become citizens or fostering trade agreements to make sure that our Southern neighbors have more independent economies. Those are all things that I support. But it seems like we will never get to those discussions if we keep telling people that it is basically okay to illegally immigrate to the United States. By providing the incentive we are just making it so that immigrants have less and less motivation to actually cooperate with the U.S. government and find a solution that gets them into America but also has them responsible for paying taxes. The way I look at it, a mutually beneficial solution cannot be reached as long as we are discouraging immigrants to come to the bargaining table to begin with.
Here's how I see it. There are plenty of reasons why people want to immigrate to the United States illegally and that is a big problem. There are many ways of addressing that by making it easier for people to legally become citizens or fostering trade agreements to make sure that our Southern neighbors have more independent economies. Those are all things that I support. But it seems like we will never get to those discussions if we keep telling people that it is basically okay to illegally immigrate to the United States. By providing the incentive we are just making it so that immigrants have less and less motivation to actually cooperate with the U.S. government and find a solution that gets them into America but also has them responsible for paying taxes. The way I look at it
The last thing our country needs right now is more freeloaders and criminals. Illegal immigrants do not care that they are destroying our country by evading taxes while working for cash and stealing jobs and becoming a huge burden to our welfare system, as long as they can enrich their own country by $billions every year. $52 million is given to illegals in welfare payments for their anchor babies every month in Los Angeles County alone.
The biggest tax evaders are not poor people who come to this country from other places. All people in that situation pay sales taxes for the things they need to survive, and most pay income tax.
The biggest tax evaders are major corporations, because they have the resources to hire lawyers for less than the cost them to pay the taxes that they owe. They have the resources to get money from the government for whatever they want to do, while hiding their profits from the government.
Anchor babies are a myth. Check out http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/11/dispel…
I think your figures are probably inaccurate. Most of the people I know without papers don't even know much about welfare programs because of language barriers and other issues. You're less likely to know about that kind of stuff if you've been here for a short amount of time.
The fact that you think an immigrant who comes into the country illegally is a freeloader or criminal completely destroys your credibility. Your opinion is basically worthless because you're just regurgitating the words coming out of mainstream pundits on television.
Most illegal immigrants work harder for less than most legal citizens. Chew on that.
can you even imagine being one of these people? like, just walking around, completely lacking any human kindness and empathy?
We have to try to re-sensitise people. It's crazy how far gone things go, how easy it seems for people to forget the humanity of other people.
i have provided financial and material aid to many undocumented families and will continue to do so as long as i live.
u mad?
We see it in the news every day how congress is grappling with the national debt; how President Obama wants to invest in our nation’s future. But not once do we here a single elected REPRESENTATIVE offer up the easiest solution of all:
Invest $520 billion in the mass deportation of illegal migrants and we will realize a 10 year return on investment in excess of $4 Trillion U.S.
If people really want to be charitable then they should consider investing in those of us born in this nation due to no fault of our own.