House Passes Bill To Avoid Government Shutdown

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

13 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Oh I know what it means. But the 14th is clear.

There are many who would like to trash it, and strip the rights of those in this forum who have had children with their foreign spouses too. There are really horrible people in this country that view your kids as ''less than'' in their eyes and apply to the term to everyone broadly.

 

Well you know how the process works for ending or changing amendments and I have a feeling it's not going to happen. I certainly understand the abuses of the system, but I remain uncomfortable at the slippery slope this takes us down. I am not in favor of stripping rights once it has been given very clearly (and I believe it was understood plainly what it meant). There are a few scenarios where changes like that would make the citizenship question very complex. Just as there are many who would like the 2nd to go, I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

 

What about naturalized citizens that give birth or have given birth inside the US before they became naturalized? Just as mentioned above there are individuals that still treat 'naturalized citizens' as less than.

Easy the naturalized person can petition for them as they ALREADY do. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

46 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

wow this is a long thread.

 

an observation for all - never date a tennis player - because love means nothing to them.

Someone is rubbing off on you 

[Boiler 46,107]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

It would need a new amendment though...since the 14th has already been interpreted to mean that birth on US soil grants citizenship regardless of your parent's status.

Or re interpreted.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Easy the naturalized person can petition for them as they ALREADY do. 

 

  Yuna said children who were born in the US.  Naturalized citizens don't currently petition for children who were born in the USA. 

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

How am I supposed to determine what question you were answering when you use a one word answer?  I did read your post and the whole strengthening the border item you mentioned seemed like an afterthought after giving the DACA recipients a path to citizenship.  My argument along with many others is that if you don't strengthen the border first, you will just keep generating a new cycle that will have to be covered by a new or recycled solution.  To me that means people really don't care about border security.

My one word no answered both of your questions.
It was not an afterthought, why did you assume that ?
Your interpretation of me not caring for border security is incorrect.
You have a made up mind about certain people and that twists what you read into what you want it to say to fit your defensiveness. 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Why do people here constantly say Canada has this law and other countries have that law ? We should just march to the tune of other countries 
all of a sudden ? Why do immigrants come up with that same talk once they are here ? I hear the door slam again after some made it here one way or another,
now they want to limit legal immigration and change the constitution ? 
Diverse immigration is what makes this a great country. Period. I am talking about legal immigration.
Babies born here are USC. If you don't like it then advocate for BP to be stricter with women with obvious advanced pregnancies on B2's. 
Overstays are not even talked about....why ? Because they are from "Norway"  ? 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

30 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

More like this from Trump:

If legal immigrants won't vote republican then I will find ways to cut legal immigration in half.
 

[Boiler 46,107]

10 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Why do people here constantly say Canada has this law and other countries have that law ? We should just march to the tune of other countries 
all of a sudden ? Why do immigrants come up with that same talk once they are here ? I hear the door slam again after some made it here one way or another,
now they want to limit legal immigration and change the constitution ? 
Diverse immigration is what makes this a great country. Period. I am talking about legal immigration.
Babies born here are USC. If you don't like it then advocate for BP to be stricter with women with obvious advanced pregnancies on B2's. 
Overstays are not even talked about....why ? Because they are from "Norway"  ? 

MDL often refer to Canada as  a wonderful place and threaten to move there but never do.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

On 1/19/2018 at 9:14 PM, JimandChristy said:

Complete incompetence and lack of leadership from the President.

 

LOL McConnell voted against his own bill, for procedural reasons but still funny.

If the majority leader votes yes for a bill, and it fails to pass, the bill is dead. However, if the majority leader votes no on a bill, and it doesn't pass, he can re-introduce it for another vote at a later time. This is something done on a regular basis in the Senate, and is one of the reasons why there's an emphasis on working out how senators are going to vote in advance.

In this case, since it was obvious that Republicans didn't have the needed votes, McConnell voted against it; that means that he has the option of bringing the House bill up for another vote later, if politics or negotiations make that seem workable. So this isn't some irony or whatnot on his part; it's a tactic required because of his position.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

If the majority leader votes yes for a bill, and it fails to pass, the bill is dead. However, if the majority leader votes no on a bill, and it doesn't pass, he can re-introduce it for another vote at a later time. This is something done on a regular basis in the Senate, and is one of the reasons why there's an emphasis on working out how senators are going to vote in advance.

In this case, since it was obvious that Republicans didn't have the needed votes, McConnell voted against it; that means that he has the option of bringing the House bill up for another vote later, if politics or negotiations make that seem workable. So this isn't some irony or whatnot on his part; it's a tactic required because of his position.

That is something I didn't know

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

12 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

That is something I didn't know

I didn't know it either until I read it on another forum so it explains alot to me. So I just wanted to repost it on here for everyone to read. I guess we both learned something new today 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

57 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

If the majority leader votes yes for a bill, and it fails to pass, the bill is dead. However, if the majority leader votes no on a bill, and it doesn't pass, he can re-introduce it for another vote at a later time. This is something done on a regular basis in the Senate, and is one of the reasons why there's an emphasis on working out how senators are going to vote in advance.

In this case, since it was obvious that Republicans didn't have the needed votes, McConnell voted against it; that means that he has the option of bringing the House bill up for another vote later, if politics or negotiations make that seem workable. So this isn't some irony or whatnot on his part; it's a tactic required because of his position.

I know, this is why I said he voted no for procedural reasons. I was well aware of this.

Edited January 23, 2018 by JimandChristy

[Dashinka 24,792]

9 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

My one word no answered both of your questions.
It was not an afterthought, why did you assume that ?
Your interpretation of me not caring for border security is incorrect.
You have a made up mind about certain people and that twists what you read into what you want it to say to fit your defensiveness. 

Then why is not border security the priority?  Past history has shown that when we combine “border security” with some form of amnesty the security portion lapses and illegal aliens flood across the border.

 

As to making assumptions, I am assuming that most people list their highest priority item (must have) first, and items that are negotiable later.  Are you of the opinion that all the items you listed are must haves?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Unidentified 2,930]

10 hours ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Why do people here constantly say Canada has this law and other countries have that law ? We should just march to the tune of other countries 
all of a sudden ? Why do immigrants come up with that same talk once they are here ? I hear the door slam again after some made it here one way or another,
now they want to limit legal immigration and change the constitution ? 
Diverse immigration is what makes this a great country. Period. I am talking about legal immigration.
Babies born here are USC. If you don't like it then advocate for BP to be stricter with women with obvious advanced pregnancies on B2's. 
Overstays are not even talked about....why ? Because they are from "Norway"  ? 

Yes, it is really weird how people, as soon as they make it here doesn't want anyone else to make it here. To the country that was built by immigrants. (No, I am not condoning open borders with my statement).