You have no clue about who i am or what I do.

For tears I only hired homeless veterans, gave them jobs, shelter and food when the hesrtless government threw them away.

For year's I provided food, clothes and Christmas gifts for the poor parents and children in my poor county.

In assocating with the welfare, local churches and salvation army my employes provide celebration parties for the children with firework at new years parties.

Christmas toys and clothes, turkey dinners on Thanksgiving. Most all holidays we have parties for the poor people.

If that makes me a heartless person, so be it.

What do you provide for the poor people?

Most of the people who are trying to enter the USA do so on a visa whose expiration date they ignore. Do your own homework. There is a backlog of some 800,000 asylum cases right now. There has been a 2000% increase in the number of asylum seekers, and more than 90% of them will be denied. While most of the "asylum seekers" who have lawyers show up for their hearings, They are only a small percentage of the people in question. In the meantime, who pays for these people? The situation in their home countries has not gotten any worse than it was before. The Mexican government allows them to pass through their country and will continue to do so until we cut off their money.
Every year there are some 300,000 babies born to wetbacks who receive birth citizenship in a parody of constitutionality. PLEASE try and debate me on this one.
Once more, do your own homework.

As a conservitive businessman I know from experience sometimes how long it takes to get a project done.

I had an expansion plan for a six year investiment that would stsrt paying or I should say repaying the money invested in the project.

It started five years ago negotiating for the land I had my eye on just a quarter mile where the tree farm road comes out on the local highway.. The owner died and his heirs the week after their father was buried began stripping the land of all the salable logs.

That was fine with me because I would have to to that myself. After about ten months I was the only one that made an offer on the cut over land.

Originally they were asking just a little over one million dollars. I offered $500,000 which they declined. In November last year with no offers, I contacted my attorney to set up a meetings in his office.

When we met we had a little plan waiting for them. When we met my attorney told them I was goint to make one final offer and if they refused the offer I would buy another plot of land.

On the Attorney's desk was five stacks of $100 dollar bills covered with a cloth. My attorney removed the cloth and the gready heirs eyes almost popped from their sockers.

Hell even I had never seen $750,000 in $100 bills before. A couple times $50,000. The heirs almost fought.over signed the bill of sale first ang get their stack of $100 dollar bills.

The Sgt. Major and four armed employees took the heirs in my limousine to their banks to deposit the money. My attorney and I drank a pot of coffee and smoked several fine cuban cigars to celebrate closing the deal.

My Attorney's plan to use the heirs greed saved me $250,000 dollars. I wasn't aware of his trick until it was done. He got a $50,000 bonus. Once the deed was recorded we started removing stumps and tree tops left by the loggers on the 510 acres.

Greed saved me a lot of money.

Most of the people who are trying to enter the USA do so on a visa whose expiration date they ignore. Do your own homework. There is a backlog of some 800,000 asylum cases right now. There has been a 2000% increase in the number of asylum seekers, and more than 90% of them will be denied. While most of the "asylum seekers" who have lawyers show up for their hearings, They are only a small percentage of the people in question. In the meantime, who pays for these people? The situation in their home countries has not gotten any worse than it was before. The Mexican government allows them to pass through their country and will continue to do so until we cut off their money.
Every year there are some 300,000 babies born to wetbacks who receive birth citizenship in a parody of constitutionality. PLEASE try and debate me on this one.
Once more, do your own homework.

Not yet marine~~Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...
application of birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants remains controversial...The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 7.5% of all births in the U.S. (about 300,000 births per year) are to unauthorized immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center also estimates that there are 4.5 million children who were born to unauthorized immigrants that received citizenship via birth in the United States; while the Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are 4.1 million children. Both estimates exclude anyone eighteen and older who might have benefited...
Anchor babies and DACA children hang in limbo and Trump is looking to get rid of anchor baby status and DACA but I have not yet seen a ruling by the SCOTUS..
If you have will you please sharevitvwith me??


Granted illegals having babies is an ongoing issue..

. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

The ruling had to do with the Panama Canal Zone, where McCain was born. The SCOTUS ruled in US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, that any child born to someone domiciled within the US was a birth citizen. The thing is, domiciled as it was defined in 1898 meant maintaining a permanent legal residence. No wetback trespassing on US soil, or even someone here legally on a temporary visa qualifies. Nor does a diplomat, which is how Muthana's father was listed when she was born. The only people who qualify under this ruling are citizens and permanent legal residents. This bullshit quasi-legal practice of extending birth citizenship to the children of wetbacks is actually a violation of the intent of the 14th Amendment. At the time it was passed, subject to the jurisdiction in the words of the men who wrote the Amendment, meant "not owing allegiance to anyone else." Wetbacks cannot legally vote, or pay taxes, or work here, or be drafted or serve on juries. Ergo, they are not subject to the jurisdiction as intended by the authors of the Amendment.