"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but I'll avoid an
unnecessary repetition of those facts. I'll instead point out that the
majority of blacks in this country today are not decendents of American
slaves - they, or their ancestors, entered this country in the 150 or so
years after slavery was abolished (the majority of those within the last
twenty years). Therefore, if you have a complaint, perhaps you should
focus
on those members of recent administrations who helped ease immigration
requirements, not on something that happened many decades ago. Both
political parties are responsible - the Democrats want voters and the
Republicans want cheap labor for big business.

I believe requirements for immigration and naturalization should be
extremely rigid, involving extensive background checks and a requirement
that the person immigrating have the means in place to make his/her
own living.


And, I believe the immigration laws are appropriate, although there is
probably room for improvement in the areas of process and validation
procedures. I think there are background checks in place as a matter of
policy--they just aren't done or aren't done adequately enough. We can put
all the laws and rules into place we want--it is getting them carried out
that is the problem.


Eligibility for state or federal "welfare" benefits should also
be severely limited.


State and Federal welfare programs need to be abolished. This would take
several years and I don't know the intricacies of the systems so I won't
pretend to know how to do it or how long it would take. The only allowance
I might be convinced of would be to have some kind of training program for
parents of children, with childcare provided through the system. And, who
would be providing the childcare? People who have been through the training
program and have chosen childcare as their avenue of profession. At any
rate, no more welfare, period.


I'd also do away with the law that states that any
person born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, if the parents,
at the time, are *not* U.S. citizens themselves.


I am in support of any person born here being a US Citizen. There are too
many legal, ethical and social issues attached to having it otherwise.


The children born to
non-citizens would be considered to be citizens of the parents' own
country of origin.


If your thinking is that parents of children born here are automatically
excluded from being deported, you are wrong. Having a child born in the
United States does not "save" the mother or father from deportation. It is
just that they will be deported *without* their child. This is if the
immigration laws haven't changed over the last several years. I say
several, because it's been that long since I was politically involved in the
US/Central America issue and, at that time, parents were sent back to El
Salvador, Guatemala, or wherever--even if they'd had a kid here. The kid
stayed and was put into the custody of the state.


Also, no person who is not a U.S. citizen, by birth
or legal naturalization, should be allowed to vote in any local, state,
or federal election. Liberal immigration and naturalization policies
amount to political corruption in it's most dangerous form -- and the
danger is to U.S. sovreignty.

73 de Larry, K3LT


There is no danger to US sovereignty. It may not be a US you like; but it
is no danger of losing its sovereignty.

Kim W5TIT