The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Ah yes the injustice of not allowing people in this county illegally to utilize our system. So it's the illegal part. That's fine. So anyone who's here, been here, the children they've had here, all of them should be sent back? I'm not casting judgement, I'm just really curious what you think an alternative would be. Yeah... I'm getting hungup on this as well. Why don't you two ask Chef. He's the one who bolded Tgreg's line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) So it's the illegal part. That's fine. So anyone who's here, been here, the children they've had here, all of them should be sent back? I'm not casting judgement, I'm just really curious what you think an alternative would be. Of course it's the illegal part seeing I have on idea what inherent injustices you're referring to. Sent back? Impossible to do and you know that. Allowing them to take advantage of our systems that have been set up for people that are legal should be denied. All of the advantages. Then no need for you're question number one. Edited August 14, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Why don't you two ask Chef. He's the one who bolded Tgreg's line. Because I'm in the habit of asking the people who actually says the things I'm questioning about them, as opposed to running along the grape vine. Now, could you please be a lamb of a lion and help me out here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Sent back? Impossible to do and you know that. Allowing them to take advantage of our systems that have been set up for people that are legal should be denied. All of the advantages. Then no need for you're question number one. So you don't believe in amnesty for those born here. Why should they be denied benefits because of someone else's transgressions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 So you don't believe in amnesty for those born here. Why should they be denied benefits because of someone else's transgressions? Ah sparky, we ain't talking anchor babies here. The latina in the article came here illegally at the age of 13. Follow along will ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Ah sparky, we ain't talking anchor babies here. The latina in the article came here illegally at the age of 13. Follow along will ya. Fair enough. You think a line should be drawn, and evidently that line comes before the age of 13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Fair enough. You think a line should be drawn, and evidently that line comes before the age of 13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Apologies, I inferred you had no problem with granting benefits to "anchor babies." So, based on what you said, I assumed there was a range between "anchor baby" and 13 where amnesty might be granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 So in it's simplest point, money paid into the US system by US citizens should be used to help the children of illegal immigrants who don't pay into our system so their child can get special treatment because she wasn't born with a penis into a white US family. Yeah, doesn't sound any less stupid than the first way I posed it. Of course it doesn't... because you put words into my mouth I never said. You're arguing a completely different point -- which usually makes stuff sound stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Of course it doesn't... because you put words into my mouth I never said. You're arguing a completely different point -- which usually makes stuff sound stupid. Must be a day that ends in 'y' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Apologies, I inferred you had no problem with granting benefits to "anchor babies." So, based on what you said, I assumed there was a range between "anchor baby" and 13 where amnesty might be granted. Age has nothing to do with it. What the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Considering I'm a Latino, your point stands.... I did not know that. Noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I did not know that. Noted. And I'm a black jewish chef born to poor white latinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Ah sparky, we ain't talking anchor babies here. The latina in the article came here illegally at the age of 13. Follow along will ya. Age has nothing to do with it. What the hell are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Because the girl in the article came to the US when she was 13. I mentioned that because you, for some unknown reason, brought anchor babies into the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Because the girl in the article came to the US when she was 13. I mentioned that because you, for some unknown reason, brought anchor babies into the mix. And you're using the article as an excuse not to answer my original question then: So you don't believe in amnesty for those born here. Why should they be denied benefits because of someone else's transgressions? / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 But that article is saying just the opposite. What Obama did by executive order is make the opportunity EQUAL even if you're illegal. That's the problem. I'm not talking about immigration policies in any of my posts. I'm not attempting to blame anyone for the fact the world isn't fair, I'm not even attempting to argue a political agenda. There's inequality of opportunity everywhere you look in this world. Always has been, always will be. But people who claim that they're white, male and Christain and are somehow a victim? THAT'S hilarious to me. As it should be to anyone who has actually lived in the world. This isn't a political statement. This is a sociological observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 And you're using the article as an excuse not to answer my original question then: / Because you pulled that question out of your ass. It has nothing to do with the article I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Because you pulled that question out of your ass. It has nothing to do with the article I was talking about. This has been fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 This has been fun. Oh was that a gotcha moment for ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts