Why DACA reversal is a lost cause

[bookburn]

DACA was designed by Obama to ensure that illegals aren't deported. Trump wants to deport illegals, so has removed DACA by executive order, AIUI. But the problem with such an agenda is that US law already stipulates that illegals born in the U.S. are "anchor babies," because they automatically become citizens. Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands. The citizen babies then have the right to have their parents join them in the U.S., at least as legal residents.

Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there, and the media is going to celebrate those who protest and agravate in favor of DACA because it's good news copy for them. All the Hollywood and Broadway "stars" are aware they can get publicity by sticking their necks out against Trump and for illegals.

Trump would have to get Constitutional law changed to NOT grant citizenship automatically for being born in the U.S.. Also, change the law regarding right of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they set foot on U.S., as the Haitian and Cuban boat people have been doing.

[CauiN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛AIkKf]

bookburn wrote on 9/13/2017 3:40 PM:
> DACA was designed by Obama to ensure that illegals aren't deported. Trump wants to deport illegals, so has removed DACA by executive order, AIUI. But the problem with such an agenda is that US law already stipulates that illegals born in the U.S. are "anchor babies," because they automatically become citizens. Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands. The citizen babies then have the right to have their parents join them in the U.S., at least as legal residents.
>

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it".

> Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there,

God has softened Governor Kisinich's heart.

> and the media is going to celebrate those who protest and agravate in favor of DACA because it's good news copy for them. All the Hollywood and Broadway "stars" are aware they can get publicity by sticking their necks out against Trump and for illegals.
>
> Trump would have to get Constitutional law changed to NOT grant citizenship automatically for being born in the U.S.. Also, change the law regarding right of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they set foot on U.S., as the Haitian and Cuban boat people have been doing.
>

That will add to his rap sheet when he meets Saint Peter. I hope he
likes it hot.

[Ed Huntress]

The people subject to DACA were not born in the US. They were brought
here by their parents as minor children.

Otherwise, they would be US citizens and DACA would have nothing to do
with it.

--
Ed Huntress

[seUtC⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛nrGPm]

What part of "Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are
probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands" don't you
understand?

They could start to be fruitful and multiply even at 16.

I would if that can save me from being departed by heartless bastards.

[Ed Huntress]

That has nothing to do with what bookburn said.

>
>They could start to be fruitful and multiply even at 16.

That would be smart, on their part.

>
>I would if that can save me from being departed by heartless bastards.

Are you at some risk of being deported, or are you talking about the
uncodumented aliens?

--
Ed Huntress

[DykBb⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛XPhUP]

Ed Huntress wrote on 9/13/2017 5:00 PM:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:50:46 -0400, seUtC?? ?????? ? ??????? ??nrGPm
> <RY...@GSEOl.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed Huntress wrote on 9/13/2017 4:38 PM:
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:40:03 -0700 (PDT), bookburn
>>> <daka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DACA was designed by Obama to ensure that illegals aren't deported. Trump wants to deport illegals, so has removed DACA by executive order, AIUI. But the problem with such an agenda is that US law already stipulates that illegals born in the U.S. are "anchor babies," because they automatically become citizens. Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands. The citizen babies then have the right to have their parents join them in the U.S., at least as legal residents.
>>>>
>>>> Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there, and the media is going to celebrate those who protest and agravate in favor of DACA because it's good news copy for them. All the Hollywood and Broadway "stars" are aware they can get publicity by sticking their necks out against Trump and for illegals.
>>>>
>>>> Trump would have to get Constitutional law changed to NOT grant citizenship automatically for being born in the U.S.. Also, change the law regarding right of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they set foot on U.S., as the Haitian and Cuban boat people have been doing.
>>>
>>> The people subject to DACA were not born in the US. They were brought
>>> here by their parents as minor children.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, they would be US citizens and DACA would have nothing to do
>>> with it.
>>>
>>
>> What part of "Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are
>> probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands" don't you
>> understand?
>
> That has nothing to do with what bookburn said.
>

That's exactly what bookburn said. Pay attention !

>>
>> They could start to be fruitful and multiply even at 16.
>
> That would be smart, on their part.
>

So that they can have anchor babies earlier. Pay attention !!

>>
>> I would if that can save me from being departed by heartless bastards.
>
> Are you at some risk of being deported, or are you talking about the
> uncodumented aliens?
>

The DACA kids. Pay attention !!!

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:07:57 -0400, DykBb?? ?????? ? ??????? ??XPhUP
<JO...@sbHre.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote on 9/13/2017 5:00 PM:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:50:46 -0400, seUtC?? ?????? ? ??????? ??nrGPm
>> <RY...@GSEOl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Huntress wrote on 9/13/2017 4:38 PM:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:40:03 -0700 (PDT), bookburn
>>>> <daka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DACA was designed by Obama to ensure that illegals aren't deported. Trump wants to deport illegals, so has removed DACA by executive order, AIUI. But the problem with such an agenda is that US law already stipulates that illegals born in the U.S. are "anchor babies," because they automatically become citizens. Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands. The citizen babies then have the right to have their parents join them in the U.S., at least as legal residents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there, and the media is going to celebrate those who protest and agravate in favor of DACA because it's good news copy for them. All the Hollywood and Broadway "stars" are aware they can get publicity by sticking their necks out against Trump and for illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump would have to get Constitutional law changed to NOT grant citizenship automatically for being born in the U.S.. Also, change the law regarding right of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they set foot on U.S., as the Haitian and Cuban boat people have been doing.
>>>>
>>>> The people subject to DACA were not born in the US. They were brought
>>>> here by their parents as minor children.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, they would be US citizens and DACA would have nothing to do
>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What part of "Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are
>>> probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands" don't you
>>> understand?
>>
>> That has nothing to do with what bookburn said.
>>
>
>That's exactly what bookburn said. Pay attention !

No, it's the opposite of what he said. He said that DACA applies to
"anchor babies." It does not. It applies to undocumented aliens
brought to the US as children -- not to those born here.

Pay attention. d8-)

>
>
>>>
>>> They could start to be fruitful and multiply even at 16.
>>
>> That would be smart, on their part.
>>
>
>So that they can have anchor babies earlier. Pay attention !!

I'm paying attention. You are not.

>
>
>>>
>>> I would if that can save me from being departed by heartless bastards.
>>
>> Are you at some risk of being deported, or are you talking about the
>> uncodumented aliens?
>>
>
>The DACA kids. Pay attention !!!

You're being ambiguous. If they're having "anchor babies," those
children are not subject to deportation. They're not subject to DACA,
unlike what bookburn said.

Pay attention.

--
Ed Huntress

[zpAKu⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛SSyjU]

Those are the exact words bookburn said. That is why I put them in quotes.

You are lousy in comprehension. That's why your math is all fucked up.

What bookburn meant was, the DACA kids churn out anchor babies so that
they themselves can also stay because of the anchor babies.

Hint: Look up the meaning of 'anchor baby' -

"used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which
has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an
advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal
residency."

Does you wife mouth feed you like we do here?

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:34:27 -0400, CauiN?? ?????? ? ??????? ??AIkKf
<Fa...@wESKb.com> wrote:

>
>> Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there,
>
>God has softened Governor Kisinich's heart.

Right along with his brain.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ed Huntress]

Ah, right you are. I missed "churn." Wrong glasses. d8-)

>
>You are lousy in comprehension. That's why your math is all fucked up.

No, actually I'm excellent at comprehension. My math as we've been
discussing it is exactly right, as any number of people here could
tell you. It's my reading glasses that are fucked up....

>
>What bookburn meant was, the DACA kids churn out anchor babies so that
>they themselves can also stay because of the anchor babies.

That's wrong. In fact, there are thousands of "guardian cards" being
sent out by rights groups because there is no legal protection from
deportation for parents of anchor babies. Under current law, they can
be deported.

By the time Congress settles the DACA issues, though, it's likely
they'll be able to stay. But not under current law as it stands.

>
>Hint: Look up the meaning of 'anchor baby' -
>
>"used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which
>has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an
>advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal
>residency."
>
>Does you wife mouth feed you like we do here?

Don't be an asshole. We know you're not the sharpest knife in the
drawer, but there's no need to provoke an exposure of it by being
insulting.

Your math is totally fucked -- below the level expected of
middle-school students. But I'm trying to be careful about explaining
it to you. Don't piss me off.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 09/13/2017 02:34 PM, CauiN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛AIkKf wrote:
>
> "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it".

And that God was never interested in quality, just quantity. That same
God screwed up when he didn't let Hagar and her bastard son die of
exposure so he might be surprised when he sees who is winning the
demographic war. Or he might just be making another bowl of popcorn and
watching the show.

[rbowman]

On 09/13/2017 02:50 PM, seUtC⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛nrGPm wrote:
>
> They could start to be fruitful and multiply even at 16.

16 esse? What? They slow learners?

[CanopyCo]

Good point regarding the kids.
I’m not sure what constitution amendment makes a wetbacks kid a citizen, but that needs to be rewritten.
It should be the kids of a citizen is a citizen, regardless of if the parent was born here or became a citizen by other means.
At least one parent should have been a citizen for the kid to be a citizen.

[RHQEa⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛qzFfW]

CanopyCo wrote on 9/15/2017 11:59 AM:
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 2:40:04 PM UTC-5, bookburn wrote:
>> DACA was designed by Obama to ensure that illegals aren't deported. Trump wants to deport illegals, so has removed DACA by executive order, AIUI. But the problem with such an agenda is that US law already stipulates that illegals born in the U.S. are "anchor babies," because they automatically become citizens. Those in the U.S., averaging over 25 years old are probably churning out anchor babies by the tens of thousands. The citizen babies then have the right to have their parents join them in the U.S., at least as legal residents.
>>
>> Other reason DACA reversal is a lost cause is that cities and states are lining up to be sanctuary cities, Ohio Governor Kisinich is inviting illegals to settle there, and the media is going to celebrate those who protest and agravate in favor of DACA because it's good news copy for them. All the Hollywood and Broadway "stars" are aware they can get publicity by sticking their necks out against Trump and for illegals.
>>
>> Trump would have to get Constitutional law changed to NOT grant citizenship automatically for being born in the U.S.. Also, change the law regarding right of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they set foot on U.S., as the Haitian and Cuban boat people have been doing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Good point regarding the kids.
> I’m not sure what constitution amendment makes a wetbacks kid a citizen, but that needs to be rewritten.
>

It is called "Birthright Citizenship". It is true in many countries in
the world.

Not just on US land, a baby born on board a US flight in foreign
airspace, or on borad a US ship sailing on international waters, may
also claim "birthright citizenship".

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401>

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof;

..........
..........

[CanopyCo]

Ah, not a constitutional amendment.
Just another idiot law like when they made alcohol illegal.
They need to change it.

[EphcD⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛FqQmd]

There is no Constitutional Amendment that stipulates how many times you
should wipe your ass in the loo, but you still do it (I hope).

If there is no amendment, then the law holds.

Please let me give you an illustration:

Are you a man? Yes? Is there a Constitutional Amendment that says you
should not be a man?

No?

Then there is no challenger to your claim that you are a man. So you are
still a man.

[rbowman]

On 09/15/2017 11:07 AM, EphcD⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛FqQmd wrote:
> Then there is no challenger to your claim that you are a man. So you are
> still a man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBKhqvam8Yg

Wait until you're 93...

[Zinger]

Most countries do not ascribe to that insanity. You get hatched from a
foreign Vagina..No matter where...You belong to that Vagina's country.
America has dozens of new citizens born to US citizens in foreign lands
and the offspring are AMERICAN!

How about the Chinese that were born of Chinese parents while building
the US Railroads? We shipped their asses back to China!

>
> Not just on US land, a baby born on board a US flight in foreign
> airspace, or on borad a US ship sailing on international waters, may
> also claim "birthright citizenship".
>
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401>
>
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at
> birth:
>
> (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
> thereof;
>
> ..........
> ..........
>
>
>
>
>
>> It should be the kids of a citizen is a citizen, regardless of if the
>> parent was born here or became a citizen by other means.
>> At least one parent should have been a citizen for the kid to be a
>> citizen.
>>
>>
>
>

--
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 01:24:08 -0500, Zinger <Zin...@badSoSad.com>
wrote:

There are 30 countries that definitely have birthright citizenship and
another dozen or so that are conditional or ambiguous. The countries
that DO have it are almost all of those in the Western Hemisphere. The
ones that don't are in the Eastern Hemisphere:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

>
>How about the Chinese that were born of Chinese parents while building
>the US Railroads? We shipped their asses back to China!
>>
>> Not just on US land, a baby born on board a US flight in foreign
>> airspace, or on borad a US ship sailing on international waters, may
>> also claim "birthright citizenship".
>>
>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401>
>>
>> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at
>> birth:
>>
>> (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
>> thereof;
>>
>> ..........
>> ..........
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It should be the kids of a citizen is a citizen, regardless of if the
>>> parent was born here or became a citizen by other means.
>>> At least one parent should have been a citizen for the kid to be a
>>> citizen.

So much for George Washington....

--
Ed Huntress

[gxKYK⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛OAlYv]

Follow the link and read. That is Cornell Law School, you shit talking fool.

>
> How about the Chinese that were born of Chinese parents while building
> the US Railroads? We shipped their asses back to China!

You've exposed yourself that you are talking out of your ass.

The Americans know that law. The hire only men. They didn't allow them
to bring women. Google that yourself, you shit talker.

[rbowman]

On 09/16/2017 12:24 AM, Zinger wrote:
> Most countries do not ascribe to that insanity. You get hatched from a
> foreign Vagina..No matter where...You belong to that Vagina's country.
> America has dozens of new citizens born to US citizens in foreign lands
> and the offspring are AMERICAN!
>

There's a saying I've heard Irish expats that were born in England use
-- "Just because I was born in a pigsty doesn't make me a pig."

[rbowman]

On 09/16/2017 07:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> There are 30 countries that definitely have birthright citizenship and
> another dozen or so that are conditional or ambiguous. The countries
> that DO have it are almost all of those in the Western Hemisphere. The
> ones that don't are in the Eastern Hemisphere:

I think it would more appropriate to say the only First World countries
are the United States and Canada.

[cvcAN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛sLkXj]

Yeah !!! Jesus was born in a manger doesn't make Him an Ass.

[Zinger]

On 9/16/2017 8:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> It is called "Birthright Citizenship". It is true in many countries in
>>> the world.
>>
>> Most countries do not ascribe to that insanity. You get hatched from a
>> foreign Vagina..No matter where...You belong to that Vagina's country.
>> America has dozens of new citizens born to US citizens in foreign lands
>> and the offspring are AMERICAN!
>
> There are 30 countries that definitely have birthright citizenship and
> another dozen or so that are conditional or ambiguous. The countries
> that DO have it are almost all of those in the Western Hemisphere. The
> ones that don't are in the Eastern Hemisphere:

With well over 200 countries in the world? Wow...One can always count on
a CuntInADress to Pile in with a stupid statement, any stupid statement
just to make sure its noise is seen and heard. CuntInADress...Haul you
antiAmerican ass back to whatever slime-pit Commy country you were urped
out in. Why the Hell are you posting in this groups anyway. Move you
smelly ass to a faggot group. You and Jonathon post more trash then any
other on net!

[PaxPerPoten]

Not if we keep hauling in these other countries assholes, Like the
Faggot that posts in favor of open borders(E.H.). And Vagina citizens!
>
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Zinger]

I take it you didn't get your ration of crack cocaine today? Cornell is
a lousy law college and I didn't vote for them ..so what they emit as
fact is not usually so.

>
>>
>> How about the Chinese that were born of Chinese parents while building
>> the US Railroads? We shipped their asses back to China!
>
> You've exposed yourself that you are talking out of your ass.

Apparently you are as stupid as you look and post. Read the history you
in bred ball sucking Canuck.

>
> The Americans know that law. The hire only men. They didn't allow them
> to bring women. Google that yourself, you shit talker.

You are vastly ignorant. They brought whole families. Why were you
hoping for a husband?

>
>>>
>>> Not just on US land, a baby born on board a US flight in foreign
>>> airspace, or on borad a US ship sailing on international waters, may
>>> also claim "birthright citizenship".
>>>
>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401>
>>>
>>> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at
>>> birth:
>>>
>>> (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the
>>> jurisdiction thereof;
>>>
>>> ..........
>>> ..........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It should be the kids of a citizen is a citizen, regardless of if the
>>>> parent was born here or became a citizen by other means.
>>>> At least one parent should have been a citizen for the kid to be a
>>>> citizen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Zinger]

God Bless the Irish.

[Zinger]

You weren't born in a manger and you definitely are an ASS.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 23:24:06 -0500, Zinger <Zin...@badSoSad.com>
wrote:

>On 9/16/2017 8:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>> It is called "Birthright Citizenship". It is true in many countries in
>>>> the world.
>>>
>>> Most countries do not ascribe to that insanity. You get hatched from a
>>> foreign Vagina..No matter where...You belong to that Vagina's country.
>>> America has dozens of new citizens born to US citizens in foreign lands
>>> and the offspring are AMERICAN!
>>
>> There are 30 countries that definitely have birthright citizenship and
>> another dozen or so that are conditional or ambiguous. The countries
>> that DO have it are almost all of those in the Western Hemisphere. The
>> ones that don't are in the Eastern Hemisphere:
>
>With well over 200 countries in the world? Wow...One can always count on
>a CuntInADress to Pile in with a stupid statement, any stupid statement
>just to make sure its noise is seen and heard. CuntInADress...Haul you
>antiAmerican ass back to whatever slime-pit Commy country you were urped
>out in. Why the Hell are you posting in this groups anyway. Move you
>smelly ass to a faggot group. You and Jonathon post more trash then any
>other on net!

Oh look. Somebody poured water on Zinger and plumped him back to life,
like a freeze-dried mushroom.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 23:26:25 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 9/16/2017 1:58 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 09/16/2017 07:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> There are 30 countries that definitely have birthright citizenship and
>>> another dozen or so that are conditional or ambiguous. The countries
>>> that DO have it are almost all of those in the Western Hemisphere. The
>>> ones that don't are in the Eastern Hemisphere:
>>
>> I think it would more appropriate to say the only First World countries
>> are the United States and Canada.
>
>Not if we keep hauling in these other countries assholes, Like the
>Faggot that posts in favor of open borders(E.H.). And Vagina citizens!

A small point of grammar there, Pox: Faggot and Vagina are not proper
nouns, and should not be capitalized.

FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that I favor open borders, nor am I making
an argument in favor of birthright citizenship. I just thought it was
curious and interesting that almost all of the countries in our
hemisphere have it, and almost all of those in the Eastern hemisphere
don't. I wonder why that is.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 09/16/2017 11:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that I favor open borders, nor am I making
> an argument in favor of birthright citizenship. I just thought it was
> curious and interesting that almost all of the countries in our
> hemisphere have it, and almost all of those in the Eastern hemisphere
> don't. I wonder why that is.

The Han Chinese want to stay Han, the Japanese want to stay Japanese,
and so forth. They've seen what multicultural diversity does.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 23:57:08 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Well, for one thing, it's produced an economy and a degree of liberty
that beats the crap out of both of them.

I don't know about multiculturalism, Robert. Ethnic enclaves are not a
good thing, IMO, as we can see from what they're doing in Europe. Our
numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures are a lot lower
then theirs have been in recent years, but we also have a much
stronger ability to melt immigrants into the pot -- at least, as long
as their numbers are fairly low in a given time span.

Diversity, however, seems to be good. That is, if you mean by the term
a bunch of people of different backgrounds all pulling in the same
direction, as in companies that employ a diverse group of employees.
That seems to encourage innovation and cross-fertilization of ideas.

But like "racism" and "self-reliance," the meanings we apply to
"multiculturalism" and "diversity" cover such a wide range of thoughts
that they probably aren't even useful as terms to communicate a
meaningful idea. Multiculturalism, particularly, seems to mean
something different to everyone.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:30:18 -0400, RHQEa?? ?????? ? ??????? ??qzFfW
<Is...@nfUce.com> wrote:

>>
>> Good point regarding the kids.
>> I’m not sure what constitution amendment makes a wetbacks kid a citizen, but that needs to be rewritten.
>>
>
>It is called "Birthright Citizenship". It is true in many countries in
>the world.
>
>Not just on US land, a baby born on board a US flight in foreign
>airspace, or on borad a US ship sailing on international waters, may
>also claim "birthright citizenship".
>
><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401>
>
>The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
>
>(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
>thereof;

So are the children of foreign diplomats automatically US citizens if
born in the US?

[CanopyCo]

However a constitutional amendment is far harder to install or alter.
However these idiot unconstitutional laws can be changed by the same easy method that installed them

That is why almost none of the idiot laws are constitutional amendments.

As a prime example, look a gun laws.
They made a idiot law regarding guns, but never altered the constitution.

[CanopyCo]

He was made a citizen the same way immigrants become citizens.
Just for you, we can add a stipulation that it only applies to those born after 1776, because there was no USA before that.

;-)

[CanopyCo]

I believe that America and Canada are the only two countries that are not also a race,
For example, you can test DNA to see if you are Italian, but you can’t test for Canadian or American.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:16:18 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

<g> Well, close. People born in this land before there was a USA were
considered to be citizens of their states after the treaty of peace
with Britain absolved them of their British allegiance. And citizens
of the states were then considered to be citizens of the United
States.

In 1783, John Jay wrote this to Congress. It appears there was no
argument with it:

"The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to
the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states..."

It was straight "birthright" citizenship, with the consideration of an
effective naturalization process for residents of the states before
independence was declared, equivalent to being "natural born" (concern
about Hamilton's eligibility to be President raised the issue) and an
allowance for a naturalization process to come, to be prescribed by
Congress. As for the general understanding at the time, we have this
from Madison in the first Congress:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes
from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it
is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be
unnecessary to examine any other."

Thus, for better or worse, we got birthright citizenship.

--
Ed Huntress

[Life Is A Carnival]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:45:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:


>Thus, for better or worse, we got birthright citizenship.

On a related note... remember when we all thought that by now, all the
shitheads would have died off, and nobody would disagree with the
lyrics of this song?
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/blue+mink/melting+pot_20826708.html

Alas, now we have a sizeable minority who, among other things, would
gleefully destroy innocent people and their families. As if that could
bring back mythical Mayberry or rust belt jobs, and stop the change in
demographics that the shitheads are doing their absolute utmost to
make the worst of.

On a positive note... Trump's approval rating 39%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

DACA support 64%
Support allowing undocumented chance to become legal 71%
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694947/-Poll-Nearly-two-thirds-of-Americans-support-DACA-while-60-percent-oppose-Arpaio-pardon

Nevertheless, some assholes in these newsgroups can't wait to write
about how desperate they are to be on the wrong side of history.

[rbowman]

On 09/17/2017 02:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> I don't know about multiculturalism, Robert. Ethnic enclaves are not a
> good thing, IMO, as we can see from what they're doing in Europe. Our
> numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures are a lot lower
> then theirs have been in recent years, but we also have a much
> stronger ability to melt immigrants into the pot -- at least, as long
> as their numbers are fairly low in a given time span.
>

European immigrants melted well. Asians, despite the historical
obstacles, have done well. Central and South Americans show little
desire to melt. Why bother if the host country cheerfully provides
Spanish language services. Muslims bring a culture with them that I do
not see assimilating any time soon.

There was a lot of buzz a while back about the US being a propositional
nation. hat may well be but I don't see 18th century liberal
propositions leading to a long history for a nation.

[rbowman]

On 09/17/2017 07:24 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> I believe that America and Canada are the only two countries that are not also a race,
> For example, you can test DNA to see if you are Italian, but you can’t test for Canadian or American.

That's becoming less true even for Europe. A while back a local
homeowner shot and killed a 'German exchange student' who was pilfering
his garage. The German was actually a Turkish Muslim born in Germany.

Central and South America are also deracinated. Unless you go for Indios
from some place like Chiapas you're going to get a mix of indigenous,
European, and African genes.

Putting all that aside, DNA testing isn't going to accurately assign a
nationality. For example, 23AndMe groups French and German together as
well as English and Irish. There was a project in Scotland that
concluded a lot of 'Scots' really aren't. The Völkerwanderung mixed
things up in Europe long before there were modern nations.

Still, I understand what you are saying. There is no typical 'American'
anymore, if there ever was. Theodore Roosevelt ranted about hyphenated
Americans over 100 years ago.

[rbowman]

On 09/17/2017 11:12 AM, Life Is A Carnival wrote:
> On a related note... remember when we all thought that by now, all the
> shitheads would have died off, and nobody would disagree with the
> lyrics of this song?
> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/blue+mink/melting+pot_20826708.html

We all? Never heard of Blue Mink or their sappy song.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:12:51 -0700, Life Is A Carnival <Li...@tb.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:45:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Thus, for better or worse, we got birthright citizenship.
>
>On a related note... remember when we all thought that by now, all the
>shitheads would have died off, and nobody would disagree with the
>lyrics of this song?
>http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/blue+mink/melting+pot_20826708.html

Yeah, I remember the time, but I don't remember the song. I do
remember Warren Beatty in "Bulworth," yelling "Everybody just gotta
keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color."

>Alas, now we have a sizeable minority who, among other things, would
>gleefully destroy innocent people and their families. As if that could
>bring back mythical Mayberry or rust belt jobs, and stop the change in
>demographics that the shitheads are doing their absolute utmost to
>make the worst of.
>
>On a positive note... Trump's approval rating 39%
>https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
>
>DACA support 64%
>Support allowing undocumented chance to become legal 71%
>https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694947/-Poll-Nearly-two-thirds-of-Americans-support-DACA-while-60-percent-oppose-Arpaio-pardon
>
>Nevertheless, some assholes in these newsgroups can't wait to write
>about how desperate they are to be on the wrong side of history.

They're already there. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 12:25:08 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 09/17/2017 02:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> I don't know about multiculturalism, Robert. Ethnic enclaves are not a
>> good thing, IMO, as we can see from what they're doing in Europe. Our
>> numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures are a lot lower
>> then theirs have been in recent years, but we also have a much
>> stronger ability to melt immigrants into the pot -- at least, as long
>> as their numbers are fairly low in a given time span.
>>
>
>European immigrants melted well. Asians, despite the historical
>obstacles, have done well. Central and South Americans show little
>desire to melt. Why bother if the host country cheerfully provides
>Spanish language services. Muslims bring a culture with them that I do
>not see assimilating any time soon.

It depends on where they're from. Edison, NJ, the township in which my
borough is located, is 29% Indian-American, and a very large
percentage of them here are Muslims -- more than Hindus. They melt in
very well. 48% of the population of Edison is foreign-born (most of
the rest are Chinese and Korean). You'd think they had been here for
generations.

However, this is a high-level economic group, mostly professional or
business people, with a *very* high percentage of entrepreneurs.

But the Indian women drive like maniacs. d8-)

>
>There was a lot of buzz a while back about the US being a propositional
>nation. hat may well be but I don't see 18th century liberal
>propositions leading to a long history for a nation.

Oh, they still sound good to me.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 09/17/2017 05:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Yeah, I remember the time, but I don't remember the song. I do
> remember Warren Beatty in "Bulworth," yelling "Everybody just gotta
> keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color."
>

I never saw the movie but from the Wiki synopsis it might be a preview
of the 2020 election. 2016 will be a hard act to follow.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:07:38 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Heh. Yeah, it was a pretty stupid movie (but fun), but it may be a
foretaste of what's to come. After this last one, I don't think
there's a lot left to surprise me. 2020 really could turn out to be
that stupid.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:58:44 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>Yeah, I remember the time, but I don't remember the song. I do
>remember Warren Beatty in "Bulworth," yelling "Everybody just gotta
>keep fuckin' everybody

The government has taken over that job.

>'til they're all the same color."

Black and blue.

[Ed Huntress]

Winston always looks on the bright side. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 09/17/2017 07:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> It depends on where they're from. Edison, NJ, the township in which my
> borough is located, is 29% Indian-American, and a very large
> percentage of them here are Muslims -- more than Hindus. They melt in
> very well. 48% of the population of Edison is foreign-born (most of
> the rest are Chinese and Korean). You'd think they had been here for
> generations.
>
> However, this is a high-level economic group, mostly professional or
> business people, with a *very* high percentage of entrepreneurs.

In fact my boss, the president of the company, is Indian but then the
owner is Vietnamese. A few of the maintenance guys are Hmong although
they tend to rotate out into what I refer to as Mua Industries. The
extended Mua family always has something going.

How the Hmong got here is a historical quirk involving General Vang and
the CIA but they hit the ground running. Early on there were a few
problems with species identification but after they understood elk were
not really big deer and needed a separate tag all was good. Sometimes
their preference for big pickups and .300 WinMags is amusing since the
older generation tend to be small. The Muas also dominate the farmers'
market. They seem to have figured out how to cope with marginal growing
conditions better than the Anglos ever did. This most definitely is not
the Garden State.

However in Montana it's a case of adapt or go someplace else. I don't
mean there is any overt racism but neither are there ethnic communities
large enough to achieve isolation.

[rbowman]

It's foolish but I'm really hoping all the infighting results in more
than two parties that are essentially the same.

[QVd4Q⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛Gtl8l]

Your political system has remained unchanged for more than 200 years.
The elite have long figured out how to manipulate the system with
lobbyists and political contributions (legal bribery). Now you have a
two-party duopoly, with both parties serving the same bunch of financial
backers. Slick Willy, Dubya, Obama, Trump. Parties flip-flop, but
policies remain the same.

You really need to adopt the British parliamentary system where you, the
people, can throw the elected leader out with non-confidence vote.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:29:27 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

That's probably an ideal situation for immigration in the US -- a lot
of pressure to assimilate, whether it's institutional or otherwise. My
only concern with immigration is that isolation and its consequences
will be allowed to occur, in the form that has caused so much trouble
for Europe.

As I said, it's clear we're more resistant to that happening. I just
think it's a potential danger thatwe have to watch out for.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:31:15 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>

Yeah, but be careful what you wish for. It could be fairly benign,
like most of the English-speaking countries, or it could be Italy in
the 1950s, where every party gets fifteen minutes of fame and two
bites of the big government pizza while they all try to bribe the
public with bread and circuses.

Multi-party systems have a really mixed record.

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

That 71% that support allowing them to become legal group is where I stand.
As I have previously stated, they should have already done that.
But if they haven’t they should get at it instead of bitching about getting kicked out for not becoming legal.

[Rockin' Chair]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:12:50 PM UTC-5, Life Is A Carnival wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:45:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Thus, for better or worse, we got birthright citizenship.
>>
>> On a related note... remember when we all thought that by now, all the
>> shitheads would have died off, and nobody would disagree with the
>> lyrics of this song?
>> http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/blue+mink/melting+pot_20826708.html
>>
>> Alas, now we have a sizeable minority who, among other things, would
>> gleefully destroy innocent people and their families. As if that could
>> bring back mythical Mayberry or rust belt jobs, and stop the change in
>> demographics that the shitheads are doing their absolute utmost to
>> make the worst of.
>>
>> On a positive note... Trump's approval rating 39%
>> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
>>
>> DACA support 64%
>> Support allowing undocumented chance to become legal 71%
>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694947/-Poll-Nearly-two-thirds-of-Americans-support-DACA-while-60-percent-oppose-Arpaio-pardon
>>
>> Nevertheless, some assholes in these newsgroups can't wait to write
>> about how desperate they are to be on the wrong side of history.
>
>That 71% that support allowing them to become legal group is where I stand.

I don't believe you. You gave away your real position when you called
them wet backs.

>As I have previously stated, they should have already done that.
>But if they haven’t they should get at it instead of bitching about getting kicked out for not becoming legal.

When you see an old lady tumble at the supermarket, do you help her
up, or try to find excuses for why nobody should help her?

Besides, I already asked you: "Spell out exactly what you think they
should be doing. And provide links to the legal docs, and the experts
who agree with you."

You provided nothing.

In a couple years, somebody will poll folks asking "were you in favor
of deporting innocent dreamers?" I predict that "yes" responses will
be as hard to find as survivalists who admit they believed society was
going to collapse at Y2K.

[0hus8⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛t0QoK]

Society in Middle East countries did collapse after Y2K. Death and
destruction everywhere. Refugees flooded into Europe.

[Rockin' Chair]

So, how long did it take you to eat your ramen stockpile? Or did you
throw it out?

[rhxcw⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛46LbJ]

You should try this ramen. Gourmet Spicy Noodles with Soup Mix. Made in
the USA. 10 in a box. Only $8.88. Spicy hot.

This is in Canadian Walmart. Price is in Canadian dollars.

<https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/nongshim-shin-ramyun-gourmet-spicy-noodles-with-soup-mix/6000195401436>

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 12:13 AM, QVd4Q⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛Gtl8l wrote:
> Your political system has remained unchanged for more than 200 years.
> The elite have long figured out how to manipulate the system with
> lobbyists and political contributions (legal bribery). Now you have a
> two-party duopoly, with both parties serving the same bunch of financial
> backers. Slick Willy, Dubya, Obama, Trump. Parties flip-flop, but
> policies remain the same.
>
> You really need to adopt the British parliamentary system where you, the
> people, can throw the elected leader out with non-confidence vote.
>

I would prefer the European model where there are several parties and
the largest one can't form a government without getting some of the
others on board which usually means conceding to some of their demands
and particular interests.

'Borgen' is a great politic drama that has some basis in real Danish
politics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgen_(TV_series)

Germany is getting interesting too. The AfD is now the third largest
party. A few more attacks by peace and freedom loving refugees won't do
Mutti Merkel much good.

[rbowman]

Yeah, but they're fun. As I replied to wannabe, I really enjoyed the
Danish political drama series 'Borgen'. Make concessions to form a
government and if you go back on them and lose your coalition watch the
government dissolve.

[Winston Smith]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:51:54 -0600, rbowman wrote:

>Yeah, but they're fun. As I replied to wannabe, I really enjoyed the
>Danish political drama series 'Borgen'. Make concessions to form a
>government and if you go back on them and lose your coalition watch the
>government dissolve.

Bi-partisan action. What a concept. We can't make two work. Or maybe
the problem is we only have two.

Rhino Rs are all pissed off Trump when where the deal could be had
without their eternal gridlock. They won't work with him but they
expect him to honor their do-nothing monopoly.

[YZgcU⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛YzsWP]

rbowman wrote on 9/18/2017 1:49 PM:
> On 09/18/2017 12:13 AM, QVd4Q⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛Gtl8l
> wrote:
>> Your political system has remained unchanged for more than 200 years.
>> The elite have long figured out how to manipulate the system with
>> lobbyists and political contributions (legal bribery). Now you have a
>> two-party duopoly, with both parties serving the same bunch of financial
>> backers. Slick Willy, Dubya, Obama, Trump. Parties flip-flop, but
>> policies remain the same.
>>
>> You really need to adopt the British parliamentary system where you, the
>> people, can throw the elected leader out with non-confidence vote.
>>
>
> I would prefer the European model where there are several parties and
> the largest one can't form a government without getting some of the
> others on board which usually means conceding to some of their demands
> and particular interests.

They need to form a "coalition government" if the winning party cannot
get a majority vote.

>
> 'Borgen' is a great politic drama that has some basis in real Danish
> politics:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgen_(TV_series)
>
> Germany is getting interesting too. The AfD is now the third largest
> party. A few more attacks by peace and freedom loving refugees won't do
> Mutti Merkel much good.

Thanks to the US turning the ME into a war zone. The UK, France,
Germany, and Italy are kinda willing partners. So, it is karma, or
"chickens coming home to roost".

The only way your political system can change is a revolution. It will
come when the ballooning debt brings whole thing tumbling down.

$20 trillion and counting
<http://www.usdebtclock.org/>

Canada may be wise to have a border wall before your shit hit the fan.

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 12:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> That's probably an ideal situation for immigration in the US -- a lot
> of pressure to assimilate, whether it's institutional or otherwise. My
> only concern with immigration is that isolation and its consequences
> will be allowed to occur, in the form that has caused so much trouble
> for Europe.

We've had that sort of isolation for a long time. The assimilation of
blacks has not been very successful and in the last few years it appears
to be going the other way. That group is not bringing a foreign culture
or a minority religion to the table either if you discount NOI.

I don't see it going any smoother with people from an entirely different
culture.

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 10:06 AM, Rockin' Chair wrote:
> When you see an old lady tumble at the supermarket, do you help her
> up, or try to find excuses for why nobody should help her?

If tow old ladies tumble and you can only help one, which do you choose?
The nice old lady who has lived down the street all her life or the
illegal immigrant?

[YTDgT⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛8WvSG]

That's the idea of having a system of non-confidence vote to bring down
the ruling government (without resorting to a violent revolution).

The US doesn't have that system. That's why the candidates lie through
their teeth to get elected and they do own thing after the election. You
the people are just fools.

[m9Znv⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛uwnQU]

rbowman wrote on 9/18/2017 2:13 PM:
> On 09/18/2017 10:06 AM, Rockin' Chair wrote:
>> When you see an old lady tumble at the supermarket, do you help her
>> up, or try to find excuses for why nobody should help her?
>

> If two old ladies tumble and you can only help one, which do you choose?

> The nice old lady who has lived down the street all her life or the
> illegal immigrant?
>

How do you know the other one is "illegal immigrant"? Is she wearing an
armband with a symbol to identify as such?

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:05:35 -0400, YZgcU?? ?????? ? ??????? ??YzsWP
<PY...@70nB0.com> wrote:

>
>Thanks to the US turning the ME into a war zone. The UK, France,
>Germany, and Italy are kinda willing partners. So, it is karma, or
>"chickens coming home to roost".
>
>The only way your political system can change is a revolution. It will
>come when the ballooning debt brings whole thing tumbling down.

Which means Canada will be reduced to a smoldering pile of wood chips
and horse shit...with whores wandering the rubble.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:09:14 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 09/18/2017 12:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> That's probably an ideal situation for immigration in the US -- a lot
>> of pressure to assimilate, whether it's institutional or otherwise. My
>> only concern with immigration is that isolation and its consequences
>> will be allowed to occur, in the form that has caused so much trouble
>> for Europe.
>
>We've had that sort of isolation for a long time. The assimilation of
>blacks has not been very successful and in the last few years it appears
>to be going the other way. That group is not bringing a foreign culture
>or a minority religion to the table either if you discount NOI.

Actually the blacks are blending in again in pretty good order. Its
just the bottom of the pile who are the problem children..egged on by
those bottom feeders who struck it rich ..but never learned that being
a bottom feeder with a gold plated Cadillac just means you are nothing
more than a rich bottom feeder.

>
>I don't see it going any smoother with people from an entirely different
>culture.

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 11:17 AM, rhxcw⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛46LbJ wrote:
> You should try this ramen. Gourmet Spicy Noodles with Soup Mix. Made in
> the USA. 10 in a box. Only $8.88. Spicy hot.
>
> This is in Canadian Walmart. Price is in Canadian dollars.
>
> <https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/nongshim-shin-ramyun-gourmet-spicy-noodles-with-soup-mix/6000195401436>
>
>

Oh yeah. Nutritious and delicious...

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/nong-shim-shin-ramyun-noodle-soup-hot-spicy-246669331

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 01:35 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> Actually the blacks are blending in again in pretty good order. Its
> just the bottom of the pile who are the problem children..egged on by
> those bottom feeders who struck it rich ..but never learned that being
> a bottom feeder with a gold plated Cadillac just means you are nothing
> more than a rich bottom feeder.

The bottom of the pile is a damn big pile judging from current events.
The mayor of St. Louis can put a smiley face on it by saying the 80 or
so that were arrested were just a few agitators.

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 12:22 PM, m9Znv⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛uwnQU wrote:
>
> How do you know the other one is "illegal immigrant"? Is she wearing an
> armband with a symbol to identify as such?

She's saying "Ayúdame!"

[H1fmc⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛QLdq0]

It has 10 grams of protein in each bag. That's half the protein in the
same serving of meatballs, sans cholesterol.

[rbowman]

To say nothing of your MDR of salt and tropical oils. I had a friend who
based his diet plan on ramen and wondered why it wasn't working. He was
label challenged and missed the part about each of those little blocks
being two servings and that with a few exceptions ramen is deep fried.

[ueeoi⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛6OIvr]

I think that is OK. Each bag of ramen has almost the same calories as a
Big Mac, and less fat and less protein.

McDonald's Big Mac Burger
<http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-sandwiches-burgers-big-mac-burger_f-ZmlkPTEwMTAyOA.html>

I think this ramen is more filling than a Big Mac because one bag of
ramen has more bulk after rehydration.

I found the ingredient of this particular ramen from amazon.com.

It has quite a bit of spices and stuff in it so you call almost call it
"whole food".

<https://www.amazon.com/NongShim-Ramyun-Noodle-Gourmet-Spicy/dp/B00778B90S?th=1>
Ingredients
WHEAT FLOUR, PALM OIL, POTATO STARCH, MODIFIED POTATO STARCH, SALT, BEEF
SEASONINGS (YEAST EXTRACT, BEEF BONE STOCK, BEEF EXTRACT, LIQUID CORN
SYRUP, REFINED BEEF TALLOW) MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, DEHYDRATED VEGETABLES
(GREEN ONION, MUSHROOM, CARROT) RED PEPPER, SUGAR, SOY SAUCE POWDER
(HYDROLYZED SOY PROTEIN AND CORN GLUTEN, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT),
SPICES(BLACK PEPPER, GARLIC, ONION, GINGER), SOY BEAN PASTE POWDER
(SOYBEAN, MALTODEXTRIN, SALT), RED PEPPER SEED OIL, POTASSIUM CARBONATE,
OLEORESIN CAPSICUM, OLEORESIN PAPRIKA, CORN FLOUR, GINGER, SODIUM
CARBONATE, DISODIUM INOSINATE, DISODIUM GUANYLATE, SODIUM METAPHOSPHATE,
SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, T-BHQ, TOCOPHEROL, SODIUM
PYROPHOSPHATE, RIBOFLAVIN COLOR. CONTAINS WHEAT AND SOY. MANUFACTURED IN
A FACILITY THAT ALSO PROCESSES EGG, MILK, FISH, AND SHELLFISH.

[rbowman]

On 09/18/2017 10:21 PM, ueeoi⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛6OIvr wrote:
> I think that is OK. Each bag of ramen has almost the same calories as a
> Big Mac, and less fat and less protein.
>
> McDonald's Big Mac Burger
> <http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-sandwiches-burgers-big-mac-burger_f-ZmlkPTEwMTAyOA.html>
>
>
> I think this ramen is more filling than a Big Mac because one bag of
> ramen has more bulk after rehydration.
>
> I found the ingredient of this particular ramen from amazon.com.
>
> It has quite a bit of spices and stuff in it so you call almost call it
> "whole food".
>

http://www.theramenrater.com/

Open your horizons.

[CanopyCo]

Well that excuse is just about as stupid as they get.
Do you even know what wet back means?
It means an illegal alien that entered threw the Mexico border.
That is what we are talking about, and that is the correct name for them.
The fact that you don’t like the name is irrelevant.
You don’t like what you are called, then change what you are.
This is no better than a thief bitching because he was called a thief.

> >As I have previously stated, they should have already done that.
> >But if they haven’t they should get at it instead of bitching about getting kicked out for not becoming legal.
>
> When you see an old lady tumble at the supermarket, do you help her
> up, or try to find excuses for why nobody should help her?
>

Depends.
Did she fall due to no reason of her own, or did she do a fake fall in order to do an illegal scam on the store?
Illegal alien didn’t get here by accident.
They are more in line with finding someone that has broken into your house, then they are with a person falling down.
I don’t help criminals.
Illegal = criminal.

> Besides, I already asked you: "Spell out exactly what you think they
> should be doing. And provide links to the legal docs, and the experts
> who agree with you."
>
> You provided nothing.
>

Other then the statement that they should follow established procurers to become a alien, and that I wasn’t going to hold their hand while they did it.
That is still my stand.
That falls right into the 71% that think they should have a chance.
They have had and still have the chance of becoming a legal alien or even a citizen, but I don’t expect anyone to hold their hand while they do it.
The time for that came and went while they decided to just stay illegal.
So again, I look at them in the same light as someone that didn’t pay the rent until they were evicted and then want more time.

> In a couple years, somebody will poll folks asking "were you in favor
> of deporting innocent dreamers?" I predict that "yes" responses will
> be as hard to find as survivalists who admit they believed society was
> going to collapse at Y2K.

:-D
Innocent dreamers?
Really?
Just like finding someone that broke into your house is just a innocent dreamer.
Both are guilty of the same base crime.
Illegal entry.

Innocent dreamers!!!!
ROFLMAO
:-D

[CanopyCo]

The one that had a honest accident.
Not the one that broke into my house and tripped over my dog.
;-)

[CanopyCo]

Um, you really aren’t helping your position when you compare it to McDonalds.
:-D

[Rockin' Chair]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:28:12 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

It's a favorite slur used by ignorant racists.

You aren't fooling anyone.

>> When you see an old lady tumble at the supermarket, do you help her
>> up, or try to find excuses for why nobody should help her?
>>
>
>Depends.

...on her being white.

>Innocent dreamers!!!!

My gawd, your ignorance is unlimited.

>ROFLMAO

Yeah, it funny how racist assholes expose their thinking, and then try
to pretend it's based on thoughtfulness.

Hey, at least you aren't alone. Another of your thoughtful cohorts
bites the dust.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/firefighters-racist-facebook-post-dog-fire-black-people-claims-tyler-roysdon-a7954176.html

[Rockin' Chair]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:13:03 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Thanks for confirming the pointlessness of encouraging the ignorant to
think logically. You will do well in your echo chamber.

[a964J⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛pd6qW]

Ramen is sort of like "fast food", except that you don't need to drive
to McDonald's, and it's a merely fraction of the price of a Big Mac.

[CanopyCo]

I notice that you have gone to selective sniping in order to remove the true statements that I made.

You are clearly a joke, considering that you keep pushing the idiot idea that a person who not only broke the law but also continues to break the law should never be dealt with for his illegal activities.

How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?

Does the answer to that question depend on the color of their skin?

[CanopyCo]

Oh I know, and agree with you.

It’s just that you could have picked just about any fast food other then McDonalds and done better.
Mc Donald’s is the bottom of the bucket when it comes to fast food.

Just kind of joking with you about that point.

:-D

Now if you had used Burger King or Pizza Hut, then that would have been a better comparison.
;-)

[Rockin' Chair]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:26:04 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

No. I leave in what I reply to. What I take out in your case are
specious arguments that I have no intention of joining in, or implying
that I might agree with.

>You are clearly a joke, considering that you keep pushing the idiot idea that a person who not only broke the law but also continues to break the law should never be dealt with for his illegal activities.

Children cannot, by definition, break the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy Only a moron, and
somebody with a demonstrable and undeniable need to demonize children,
pretends that the dreamers themselves broke the law.

The irony here is that you believe dreamer children should know the
law, while would have readers view your ignorance of the law as
thoughtful.

>How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?

Here, read this and see if it helps you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy But I know it won't. You
will refuse to accept that you subscribe to multiple logical
fallacies, in the same way you refuse to accept that you have already
proven you subscribe to the gambler's fallacy. If you can't accept an
error, then you cannot correct it. That is one of the core reasons
that self-described survivalists I have known personally, failed to
thrive.

[PcEZO⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛kLhPe]

I have to agree with you. The dreamers were brought here "due to no
fault of their own".

> The irony here is that you believe dreamer children should know the
> law, while would have readers view your ignorance of the law as
> thoughtful.
>
>> How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?
>
> Here, read this and see if it helps you.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy But I know it won't. You
> will refuse to accept that you subscribe to multiple logical
> fallacies, in the same way you refuse to accept that you have already
> proven you subscribe to the gambler's fallacy. If you can't accept an
> error, then you cannot correct it. That is one of the core reasons
> that self-described survivalists I have known personally, failed to
> thrive.
>

CanopyCo and I have proven that "Gambler's Fallacy" is itself a fallacy.

Consider this:

At the casino roulette table, the probability of getting 4 Reds in a
row, (RRRR) = (1/2) * (1/2) * (1/2) * (1/2) = (1/16).

After the first (R), probability of getting additional (RRR) to make (RRRR):

1 * (RRR) = (1/16), not (1/8), because probability = 1 when something
has become a certainty, and the odds of a run don’t change.

i.e. after you have seen 1 Red at the roulette table, the possibility of
getting additional three Reds in a row is 1/16, not 1/8.

After (RR), probability of getting additional (RR) to make (RRRR):

1 * 1 * (RR) = (1/16), not (1/4), because probability = 1 when something
has become a certainty, and the odds of a run don’t change.

i.e. after you have seen 2 Reds in a row at the roulette table, the
possibility of getting additional 2 Reds in a row is 1/16, not 1/4.


After (RRR), probability of getting additional (R) to make (RRRR):

1 * 1 * 1 * (R) = (1/16), not (1/2), because probability = 1 when
something has become a certainty, and the odds of a run don’t change.

i.e. after you have seen 3 Reds in a row at the roulette table, the
possibility of getting additional 1 Red is 1/16, not 1/2.


Remember, the odds of a run don't change.

So by inference, the odds of future events do change due to previous events.

[CanopyCo]

And we get another idiot response from you.
If they are presently under X years of age (X being whatever age you think they are old enough to fill out a immigration form), we cannot separate them from there soon to be deported criminal parents, so out they go.

If the parents have a rational immigration request, then the parents should present it.
After all, if we already have all the tomato pickers (or whatever it is that the parents think makes them desirable as immigrants) then there is no justification for letting them in.

So what is it that you are pushing?
Keeping criminal parents because they included their kids in the crime, or orphaning the kids when we kick out the parents and then justify allowing a unaccompanied minor to immigrate just so he can enter foster care.

You have 0 justification for keeping the parents, so those are your only options.

> The irony here is that you believe dreamer children should know the
> law, while would have readers view your ignorance of the law as
> thoughtful.
>

The real irony is that you actually think that all of them are minors that are too young to be separated from their criminal parents, or that we should separate them from their criminal parents, or that we should keep criminal parents because they included their kids in their criminal activities.

We should drop all breaking and entering charges if the criminal brings his kid along.

> >How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?
>
> Here, read this and see if it helps you.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy But I know it won't. You
> will refuse to accept that you subscribe to multiple logical
> fallacies, in the same way you refuse to accept that you have already
> proven you subscribe to the gambler's fallacy. If you can't accept an
> error, then you cannot correct it. That is one of the core reasons
> that self-described survivalists I have known personally, failed to
> thrive.

The fallacy is you thinking that they and their parents are not breaking the law.
Another of your fallacies is thinking that you are justified lying and twisting the truth if it supports your favored cause.

The parents are criminals because they chose to break the law.
The children are no different than all the other children that want to immigrate to here and must follow the same procedure to stay as any other child wishing to immigrate.
The fact that they grew up here made only one difference, and that is that they are old enough to know that they are breaking the law and should fill out their own immigration forms.

This is reality, regardless of if it is liked or not.
One would be more successful in there arguments if they kept reality in mind as the priority, instead of if they like it or not.

[CanopyCo]

Agreed.
The fact that they are here is not their fault.
The fact that some of them got caught trying to get smuggled in was not their fault, but they still got sent back.
Justify keeping one and sending the other one back.
Justify keeping all immigrants if they bring their kids.

Actually, I think the gamblers fallacy was thinking that the odds of a run will become .5 on the last toss, despite the fact that that coin toss was part of the run in question.
The idea that the odds of getting two heads in a row went from the actual odds of .25 to the fallacy odds of .5 because the first toss was heads.

That is to me the most humorous and ironic part of the discussion in question.
The fact that the person citing gamblers fallacy was doing so to support him believing the gamblers fallacy was actually true.
The fact that the one saying that I had fallen for the gamblers fallacy was himself the one falling for the fallacy.

[CanopyCo]

Really?
That is the thinking that gets so many kids in jail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c4vJosXw70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IVDK8Kubh4

[ZV6G7⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛xUbcu]

Given the reputation of your government, how do they know this is not a
trap to get them to register and then US Stasi will come in the middle
of the night to put them on a train, just like what happened to the Jews
in Nazi Germany?

> If the parents have a rational immigration request, then the parents should present it.
> After all, if we already have all the tomato pickers (or whatever it is that the parents think makes them desirable as immigrants) then there is no justification for letting them in.
>

These dreamers ended up here due to no fault of their own.

> So what is it that you are pushing?
> Keeping criminal parents because they included their kids in the crime, or orphaning the kids when we kick out the parents and then justify allowing a unaccompanied minor to immigrate just so he can enter foster care.
>

Dreamers are dreamers. The dreamers ended up here due to no fault of
their know.

You should deal with the parents separately.

> You have 0 justification for keeping the parents, so those are your only options.
>

I think they are talking about the dreamers, not about their parents.

>
>> The irony here is that you believe dreamer children should know the
>> law, while would have readers view your ignorance of the law as
>> thoughtful.
>>
>
> The real irony is that you actually think that all of them are minors that are too young to be separated from their criminal parents, or that we should separate them from their criminal parents, or that we should keep criminal parents because they included their kids in their criminal activities.
>
> We should drop all breaking and entering charges if the criminal brings his kid along.
>

The kid is innocent. Ask any legal expert.

>
>>> How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?
>>
>> Here, read this and see if it helps you.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy But I know it won't. You
>> will refuse to accept that you subscribe to multiple logical
>> fallacies, in the same way you refuse to accept that you have already
>> proven you subscribe to the gambler's fallacy. If you can't accept an
>> error, then you cannot correct it. That is one of the core reasons
>> that self-described survivalists I have known personally, failed to
>> thrive.
>
> The fallacy is you thinking that they and their parents are not breaking the law.
> Another of your fallacies is thinking that you are justified lying and twisting the truth if it supports your favored cause.
>

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is about the dreamers, not
their parents.

> The parents are criminals because they chose to break the law.
> The children are no different than all the other children that want to immigrate to here and must follow the same procedure to stay as any other child wishing to immigrate.
> The fact that they grew up here made only one difference, and that is that they are old enough to know that they are breaking the law and should fill out their own immigration forms.
>

The dreamers ended up here due to no fault of their own.

If they register, your Stasi might come in the middle of the night and
put them on a train, just like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:53:42 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

What I said is that, given the previous flips, the odds of completing
the sequence with the final flip is 0.5.

The chance of one flip is 50% heads and 50% tails, no matter how many
flips came before, and how they came out.

Believing otherwise, as you said you do many times, is the gambler's
fallacy.

>The idea that the odds of getting two heads in a row went from the actual odds of .25 to the fallacy odds of .5 because the first toss was heads.

No fallacy there. That's exactly how it happens. If "the first toss
was heads," as you say, and the odds of the second toss is 0.5, the
odds of getting two heads is 0.5 AFTER THE FIRST TOSS, which is the
condition you set.

>
>That is to me the most humorous and ironic part of the discussion in question.

We're all laughing. d8-)

>The fact that the person citing gamblers fallacy was doing so to support him believing the gamblers fallacy was actually true.

I do believe it. So does every casino, every stat teacher, every
probability textbook, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and every other
credible source in the world.

>The fact that the one saying that I had fallen for the gamblers fallacy was himself the one falling for the fallacy.

Maybe you should tell the authors of those books how wrong they are.
<g>

Now, for your next act, lets see you and Wannabee prove that, after
all, you CAN square a circle.

If you've disproven the gambler's fallacy, it should be easy for you
guys. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:44:48 -0700, Rockin' Chair <r...@tb.net> wrote:

>>
>>Well that excuse is just about as stupid as they get.
>>Do you even know what wet back means?
>
>It's a favorite slur used by ignorant racists.
>
>You aren't fooling anyone.

Snicker...if a white or middle easterner comes across the RIO
Grande...and we call him/her a wetback...its racist?

Odd...its actually factual

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:16:28 -0400, ZV6G7?? ?????? ? ??????? ??xUbcu
<Mz...@LJR4o.com> wrote:

>
>Given the reputation of your government, how do they know this is not a
>trap to get them to register and then US Stasi wi

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[p8LYq⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛SjtEn]

Ed Huntress wrote on 9/19/2017 2:26 PM:
>
> Now, for your next act, lets see you and Wannabee prove that, after
> all, you CAN square a circle.

It was very difficult to find the area of circle before it was known that:

Area of cicle = π*r*r

People try to approximate the area of a circle by "Squaring the Circle"
(using many small squares to fit inside the circle).

The area of a square has a simple equation of the square of the length
of its side. If you use a very large number of small squares, then you
can approximate the area of a circle quite accurately.

Newton invented calculus method in finding the area bound by a curve, by
using infinitesimally small squares, and then "taking to the limit" the
length of the side of the square approaching zero.

Today, you can find the area of a circle without knowing calculus or the
value of π. You can get the area by measuring the circumference and the
radius of a circle.

Triangle proof:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_circle#Triangle_proof>

Knowing that a triangle is a rectangle sliced in half diagonally, and a
square is a special case of a rectangle, so the "triangle proof" can be
construed as "squaring a circle".

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400, p8LYq?? ?????? ? ??????? ??SjtEn
<qe...@YsK0W.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote on 9/19/2017 2:26 PM:
>>
>> Now, for your next act, lets see you and Wannabee prove that, after
>> all, you CAN square a circle.
>
>
>It was very difficult to find the area of circle before it was known that:
>

>Area of cicle = ?*r*r

>
>People try to approximate the area of a circle by "Squaring the Circle"
>(using many small squares to fit inside the circle).
>
>The area of a square has a simple equation of the square of the length
>of its side. If you use a very large number of small squares, then you
>can approximate the area of a circle quite accurately.
>
>Newton invented calculus method in finding the area bound by a curve, by
>using infinitesimally small squares, and then "taking to the limit" the
>length of the side of the square approaching zero.
>
>Today, you can find the area of a circle without knowing calculus or the

>value of ?. You can get the area by measuring the circumference and the

>radius of a circle.
>
>Triangle proof:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_circle#Triangle_proof>
>
>Knowing that a triangle is a rectangle sliced in half diagonally, and a
>square is a special case of a rectangle, so the "triangle proof" can be
>construed as "squaring a circle".

That's nice, but it's not what is meant by "squaring a circle." You're
limited to using a compass and a straightedge.

It's an ancient dilemma for which the proof (that it can't be done) is
based on the proof that pi is transcendental. That occurred well over
a century ago.

--
Ed Huntress

[ibCxN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛PJa4S]

The young offenders knowingly and willingly committed a punishable crime.

The DACA kids are different. They didn't come here of their own volition.

[rbowman]

On 09/19/2017 12:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:44:48 -0700, Rockin' Chair <r...@tb.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well that excuse is just about as stupid as they get.
>>> Do you even know what wet back means?
>>
>> It's a favorite slur used by ignorant racists.
>>
>> You aren't fooling anyone.
>
>
> Snicker...if a white or middle easterner comes across the RIO
> Grande...and we call him/her a wetback...its racist?
>
> Odd...its actually factual

Does that make my grandmother a wetback? She crossed the Saint-Laurent...

[rbowman]

On 09/19/2017 03:39 PM, ibCxN⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛PJa4S wrote:
> The DACA kids are different. They didn't come here of their own volition.

The illegals have explained the situation to Madame Pelosi; either they
all stay or they all go. Adios amigos.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:18:38 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

If she did it illegally...yes indeed.

[PaxPerPoten]

Bowman..you must be chumming with Catfish bait to snag this dummy.
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[CanopyCo]

They don’t, just like when a squatter is found living in your attic.
Once found, he doesn’t know if he is going to the jail or the homeless shelter,
So, you just going to let him stay living in your attic?
If yes, when should I move in?
;-)

You see, that is the problem with being a criminal.
Once you get caught, you are at the mercy of the law.
So it is best if they just fill out immigration papers in the first place so that the law will be on their side.

Exactly what prevents them from applying for immigration, stating that they are still living where they came from?
No fear of deportation there, and that would get them a legal green card.

> > If the parents have a rational immigration request, then the parents should present it.
> > After all, if we already have all the tomato pickers (or whatever it is that the parents think makes them desirable as immigrants) then there is no justification for letting them in.
> >
>
> These dreamers ended up here due to no fault of their own.
>
>

They were someplace else due to no fault of their own before they were here due to no fault of their own.
They should get out of the Wal-Mart that their parents broke into with them in tow and go to where they belong.

The fact that they are in a closed liquor store due to their parents bringing them is not a reason to leave them there.
It is a reason to arrest the parents and put the kids into foster care.
What?
That is just for citizens that get caught breaking the law but not for aliens?
Wrong.
One law for everyone.
This shit of one law for me and another law for the royalty is bullshit.

If I get caught entering someplace illegally, I go to jail.
If I have kids, that didn’t stop me from going to jail.
They go into foster care.

If the law is good enough for me, then it is good enough for everyone, including illegal aliens.

Also, there are millions of children that are where they are due to no fault of their own, and they would like to come here.
What gives the children of known criminal’s preferential treatment over law abiding immigrants?
I say let them apply just like all the rest of the immigrants and stay here legally.
If they don’t qualify for immigration, then they don’t qualify.

> > So what is it that you are pushing?
> > Keeping criminal parents because they included their kids in the crime, or orphaning the kids when we kick out the parents and then justify allowing a unaccompanied minor to immigrate just so he can enter foster care.
> >
>
> Dreamers are dreamers. The dreamers ended up here due to no fault of
> their know.
>
> You should deal with the parents separately.
>

As I suggested.
The parents are illegal and thus deported.
The children can apply for immigration and take their chances just like any other immigrant.
If they can’t stay because they are a unaccompanied minor, then to bad.
After all, why should the children of known criminals get better treatment then child immigrants that are going by the rules and applying for immigration legally?

What are you suggesting?
That we separate the kids from their criminal parents or keep a known criminal because he took his kid along when he broke in.

Funny how if anyone else took their kid along on a criminal actively, they would be demonized for putting the kid in harm’s way.
But you guys want to just give them a free ride if they are Mexican and bring their kids along while risking their lives in order to break into someplace that they knew was illegal for them to enter.

>
> > You have 0 justification for keeping the parents, so those are your only options.
> >
>
> I think they are talking about the dreamers, not about their parents.
>

So, you suggest that minors be separated from their parents and put into foster care?
:-D

> >
> >> The irony here is that you believe dreamer children should know the
> >> law, while would have readers view your ignorance of the law as
> >> thoughtful.
> >>
> >
> > The real irony is that you actually think that all of them are minors that are too young to be separated from their criminal parents, or that we should separate them from their criminal parents, or that we should keep criminal parents because they included their kids in their criminal activities.
> >
> > We should drop all breaking and entering charges if the criminal brings his kid along.
> >
>
> The kid is innocent. Ask any legal expert.
>
>

Irrelevant.
He still didn’t get to stay in the Wal-Mart that the parents illegal entered.
He got kicked out, just like these should be.

> >
> >>> How long should we put up with someone ignoring the law, and how many laws should we put up with them breaking before we deal with them?
> >>
> >> Here, read this and see if it helps you.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy But I know it won't. You
> >> will refuse to accept that you subscribe to multiple logical
> >> fallacies, in the same way you refuse to accept that you have already
> >> proven you subscribe to the gambler's fallacy. If you can't accept an
> >> error, then you cannot correct it. That is one of the core reasons
> >> that self-described survivalists I have known personally, failed to
> >> thrive.
> >
> > The fallacy is you thinking that they and their parents are not breaking the law.
> > Another of your fallacies is thinking that you are justified lying and twisting the truth if it supports your favored cause.
> >
>
> DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is about the dreamers, not
> their parents.
>

Bullshit.
It is either keeping the parents because the kid is a minor, or separating the minor kid from his deported parents and putting them in foster care.
No?
Then exactly what option are you suggesting that they are going for?

My bet is they are for keeping the criminal parents because they included there kid in their criminal activities.

>
> > The parents are criminals because they chose to break the law.
> > The children are no different than all the other children that want to immigrate to here and must follow the same procedure to stay as any other child wishing to immigrate.
> > The fact that they grew up here made only one difference, and that is that they are old enough to know that they are breaking the law and should fill out their own immigration forms.
> >
>
> The dreamers ended up here due to no fault of their own.
>
> If they register, your Stasi might come in the middle of the night and
> put them on a train, just like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany.
>

On a train back to where they came from.
Sounds like the same dilemma that any criminal has.
If he gets caught, he will be put on a train.
Normally a criminal isn’t allowed to take their kids with them on the train.
They are put in foster care.
In this instance I would make a exception and allow the kids to accompany them on the train.

All criminals fear the law.
That is why they should have done it legally in the first place instead of breaking the law.

Why should we give preferred treatment to law breakers while refusing law abiding immigrants entry?
Send them home and let them apply legally for immigration.

[CanopyCo]

That is the gamblers fallacy.
The idea that every math web page and math book is wrong.
The odds of getting two heads in a row is actually .5.
You think it is not .25 that EVERY math source states is the correct odds.

But you are just too dense to see it.
You keep saying that you are right and EVERY math source is wrong.

:-D

> >
> >That is to me the most humorous and ironic part of the discussion in question.
>
> We're all laughing. d8-)
>
> >The fact that the person citing gamblers fallacy was doing so to support him believing the gamblers fallacy was actually true.
>
> I do believe it. So does every casino, every stat teacher, every
> probability textbook, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and every other
> credible source in the world.
>

What I was saying was that you were the one falling for the fallacy while trying to say that EVERY math source was wrong and that THEY were the ones falling for the fallacy.

The fallacy is the thinking that the odds of a run changes to .5 on the last toss, despite the fact that you cannot find a single reputable source that agrees with you.
But every one of them agrees with me that the odds of a run include the odds of every coin in the run.

The fallacy is thinking that the odds of getting two heads in a row is .5 and not the .25 that EVERY source states is correct.

> >The fact that the one saying that I had fallen for the gamblers fallacy was himself the one falling for the fallacy.
>
> Maybe you should tell the authors of those books how wrong they are.
> <g>
>

Maybe you should show me even one that agrees with you?
Every one of them that I seen said what I said.

You are falling for the gamblers fallacy and can’t even comprehend it because the math used in calculating odds is counter intuitive.
That is why you think every math book is wrong and you are right.

That is the gamblers fallacy in action.

> Now, for your next act, lets see you and Wannabee prove that, after
> all, you CAN square a circle.
>
> If you've disproven the gambler's fallacy, it should be easy for you
> guys. d8-)
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Perhaps you should show how YOU are not the one that has fallen for the gamblers fallacy by thinking that every math source is wrong and you are right.

It’s pretty obvious considering that you cannot show even one source that agrees with you.