Some perspective on "immigration"?

PrintSmith wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Why are you attempting to hold me to something I've never said Z? A United States citizen is a person who is a citizen in one, not all, of the States that belong to the Union.

and

PrintSmith wrote: I am a citizen of Colorado, one of the States that belong to the Union, . . .

As I noted earlier, asked and answered.

Not really, P. A United States Citizen is a citizen of the United States of America:

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

And from the source, itself:

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-ti...hapIII-partI-sec1401

17 States filed suit today in federal court saying the president has exceeded his authority with his pen and his phone . . .

The coalition of states involved in the suit includes: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/texa...ation-action-n260956

PrintSmith wrote: 17 States filed suit today in federal court saying the president has exceeded his authority with his pen and his phone . . .

The coalition of states involved in the suit includes: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/texa...ation-action-n260956

Waaaaiiiiittttt a minute, here, P. I thought you hated NBC News?

Satire, but relevant: dailycurrant.com/2014/12/12/native-ameri...undocumented-whites/

ZHawke wrote: Satire, but relevant: dailycurrant.com/2014/12/12/native-ameri...undocumented-whites/

That depends on what the meaning of relevent is.

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Satire, but relevant: dailycurrant.com/2014/12/12/native-ameri...undocumented-whites/

That depends on what the meaning of relevent is.

How do you define "relevant", then?

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Satire, but relevant: dailycurrant.com/2014/12/12/native-ameri...undocumented-whites/

That depends on what the meaning of relevent is.

How do you define "relevant", then?

Our predecessor's won this nation in battles with the indigenous people, it is called history.
Regarding immigration of the unskilled people crossing our borders illegally now, we don't need their skill set, or lack of now. They are burdens on our economy.

HEARTLESS wrote: Our predecessor's won this nation in battles with the indigenous people, it is called history.

So, what our "predecessors" did to the indigenous people by suppressing them, committing genocide against them, placing them on reservations, force feeding them our culture and religion, taking away their children and the list goes on - all of that was/is ok? Because it is "history"? Because we "won" and they "lost"?

Yours is the kind of mindset that contributes significantly to the problems we keep seeing on just about every single Reservation today.

HEARTLESS wrote: Regarding immigration of the unskilled people crossing our borders illegally now, we don't need their skill set, or lack of now. They are burdens on our economy.

So, let the "skilled" people cross over the border illegally, but keep those "unskilled" ones out because they are a burden on our economy? Yep, that makes all kinds of sense.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Satire, but relevant: dailycurrant.com/2014/12/12/native-ameri...undocumented-whites/

That depends on what the meaning of relevent is.

How do you define "relevant", then?

You said it was relivant so you tell us. To me it is a non sequitur. Makes as much sense as saying that we need to spend more $ to fund NPR because we spend so much on hallaween candy.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Our predecessor's won this nation in battles with the indigenous people, it is called history.

So, what our "predecessors" did to the indigenous people by suppressing them, committing genocide against them, placing them on reservations, force feeding them our culture and religion, taking away their children and the list goes on - all of that was/is ok? Because it is "history"? Because we "won" and they "lost"?

Yours is the kind of mindset that contributes significantly to the problems we keep seeing on just about every single Reservation today.

HEARTLESS wrote: Regarding immigration of the unskilled people crossing our borders illegally now, we don't need their skill set, or lack of now. They are burdens on our economy.

So, let the "skilled" people cross over the border illegally, but keep those "unskilled" ones out because they are a burden on our economy? Yep, that makes all kinds of sense.

Are the problems on the Rez you refer to, legal gambling, trophy hunting, etc. because they are finding ways out of the poverty cycle and educating their people?
Regarding letting uneducated low skilled people into the nation, explain how that won't bankrupt our nation.