canada did it

[scandal 951]

do you really need an answer to that?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

do you really need an answer to that?

Yup. Care to explain why we shouldn't get the best soldiers money can buy? Sovereignty? PUULEEZE. That is the case for National Healthcare not against it. Let's assume a Chinese Company (they are all government shells)buys up a few insurers. Who will they serve? It will be in their best interest to make sure Americans are sick, unproductive and the economy tanks and the populace will not be able to fight. Blackwater, as Scandal has pointed out, is the reason that outsourcing should never be done for strategic concerns. Healthcare will be next battlefield, make no mistake about it. Using the logic of The Patriot Act and other far reaching legislative instruments, it is in the strategic interest of The United States of America to ensure that the populace is as healthy as possible in case of war or other national emergency, in addition, it is not in the economic interests of the United States to have an unhelathy workforce. We can't have sick people roaing the streets and putting them in the hospital when they have acute conditions is a preventable burden on the economy. The preamble to the US Constitution is quite clear,

We the People of the United States,

in Order to form a more perfect Union,

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

provide for the common defence,

promote the general Welfare,

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We have eminent domain cases which show us the way. What is in the best interest of the public? Property appropriations must be for public usage.

In Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids, a famous eminent domain case, the court noted "the health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers" which it concluded, "Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ...promote the general Welfare."

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Great post.

Thanks, that's so nice of you to say. I hate this half-truth or outright lying ####### because some people don't bother to check it out.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

justashooter probably already knows this, but curiously enough, John Tanton's FAIR is behind a movement to get legislation that would attempt to end birthright citizenship in this country.

People need to wake up and realize that this racist ####### Tanton and his many deceptive anti-immigration organizations are behind all the hoopla over illegal immigration. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of their tactics.

See here

Racist pricks.

You got that right. They're concerned because they know what happens when you let in illegal and undesirable aliens, just look what happened to the Native Americans. Seriously we should strip the citizenship of anyone who is here illegally, but we should go further and using the idea of derivative citizanship we should strip the citizenship of and deport anyone who falls in thi category not matter how many generations have passed. The people on the Mayflower didn't declare themselves when they arrived at Plymouth Rock. There was no US but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore, everyone other than an Aboriginal person must go home.

[Pooky 3,348]

You got that right. They're concerned because they know what happens when you let in illegal and undesirable aliens, just look what happened to the Native Americans. Seriously we should strip the citizenship of anyone who is here illegally, but we should go further and using the idea of derivative citizanship we should strip the citizenship of and deport anyone who falls in thi category not matter how many generations have passed. The people on the Mayflower didn't declare themselves when they arrived at Plymouth Rock. There was no US but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore, everyone other than an Aboriginal person must go home.

Then kick out the "Native" Americans, because they aren't exactly the original indigenous population either See Here.

[Peikko 1,575]

According to Nick Griffin, wherever your ancestors were in the 1600's is where you belong now

Edited May 1, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Pooky 3,348]

According to Nick Griffin, wherever your ancestors were in the 1600's is where you belong now

Nick Griffin can say what he likes. He'll always be a racist f***wit.

[Ban Hammer 12,840]

Yup. Care to explain why we shouldn't get the best soldiers money can buy? Sovereignty? PUULEEZE. That is the case for National Healthcare not against it. Let's assume a Chinese Company (they are all government shells)buys up a few insurers. Who will they serve? It will be in their best interest to make sure Americans are sick, unproductive and the economy tanks and the populace will not be able to fight. Blackwater, as Scandal has pointed out, is the reason that outsourcing should never be done for strategic concerns. Healthcare will be next battlefield, make no mistake about it. Using the logic of The Patriot Act and other far reaching legislative instruments, it is in the strategic interest of The United States of America to ensure that the populace is as healthy as possible in case of war or other national emergency, in addition, it is not in the economic interests of the United States to have an unhelathy workforce. We can't have sick people roaing the streets and putting them in the hospital when they have acute conditions is a preventable burden on the economy. The preamble to the US Constitution is quite clear,

We the People of the United States,

in Order to form a more perfect Union,

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

provide for the common defence,

promote the general Welfare,

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We have eminent domain cases which show us the way. What is in the best interest of the public? Property appropriations must be for public usage.

In Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids, a famous eminent domain case, the court noted "the health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers" which it concluded, "Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: ...promote the general Welfare."

come back from your tangent, you're running all over the map!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

come back from your tangent, you're running all over the map!

Bvllshit!!!!! Tom Tancredo taught me the art of debating. :rofl:

This has nothing to do with the Roosevelt Corollary or American Foreign Policy. :rofl:

BTW, that argument does hold water. The issue was citizenship but this is much more fun. :yes:

Now if you don't play nice, I won't let you watch Roger Ramjet. :bonk:

Edited May 1, 2010 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[justashooter 430]

That would be me. As usual the Representative got it wrong. Congress makes mistakes, can you imagine. :bonk:

The act that has been in force since April 17, 2008 is Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29.

PART I

THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP

Persons who are citizens

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;

If your old lady (no matter how she got here) dropped you in Soviet Canuckistan then you are a Canuck.

What the distinguished moron from AZ read relates to Nato personnel, diplomats, foreign staff in the service f their country. Oliver Platt was born in Windsor, Ontario, Canada but his father was in the diplomatic corps of the United States so he was not granted Canadian citizenship.

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and either of his parents was

(a) a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government;

(b) an employee in the service of a person referred to in paragraph (a); or

© an officer or employee in Canada of a specialized agency of the United Nations or an officer or employee in Canada of any other international organization to whom there are granted, by or under any Act of Parliament, diplomatic privileges and immunities certified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be equivalent to those granted to a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a).

somebody can't read. see the text in bold and large size.

also, for those of you not born in the USA and not familiar with the local slang, "old lady" is not your mother.

it is your wife, spouse, girlfriend, etc.

[Heracles 417]

John Tanton's FAIR is behind a movement to get legislation that would attempt to end birthright citizenship in this country

Racist pricks.

What about every other first world country? Are they racist too?

You're getting more ridiculous by the day.

[Heracles 417]

A rofl smiley. Clearly an ace on the high school debating team.

What about kicking an screaming like a little girl because people don't agree with you? Is that mature? Is there not a sheep ###### thread you could be in?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Booyah!

[CDAgirlMI 51]

I agree with any law that states that you are not automatically given citizenship of a country if your parents are not either citizens/legal residents of that particular country.

After someone is born in that country, its up to them to get citizenship on their own.

[ValerieA 350]

somebody can't read. see the text in bold and large size.

You missed the AND part - that applies if one parent had diplomatic status.

In general, you are a Canadian citizen if you were born in Canada. You are not a Canadian citizen if you were born in Canada and at the time of your birth, your parents were neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents, and at least one parent had diplomatic status in Canada.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english//resources/publications/citizenship.asp#tphp idtphp

[Niels Bohr 72]

Okay,

What does it mean, "Asians are everywhere just as bad as the Hispanics"? What's wrong with being Asian and getting citizenship?

####### is wrong with this people. Now, if I were to say "Whites are everywhere just as bad as the Hispanics." ####### is that?