|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 members (Butchman205, Jdkprp70, Bamarich2, Double Creek2, Dixiepatriot, 7short, kodiak06, Aldecks1, JohnG, farmerjay, Curdoggin, James, Chad Burnette, RareBreed, laylandad, Ridgehunter36, Okatuppa, NoHuntin, jdstephen44, dave260rem!, Warhead, Auburn1716, Tigger85, hawndog, BentBarrel, Bulls eye, sevenup, Claims Rep., Turkey_neck, MountainTopHunter, UARandy3, AU338MAG, 6 invisible),
727
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 22,819 Likes: 197
Impatient Stinky Britches Wearin’ Off-Roadin’ Guru
|
|
Impatient Stinky Britches Wearin’ Off-Roadin’ Guru
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 22,819 Likes: 197 |
Let them stay but don't let them act as "anchors". Deport momma and daddy. If they want to take their kid with them, great, If they don't then it becomes a ward of the state. We're paying for them anyhow. They will have to make a choice as there's nothing in the constitution protecting them, only the child.
.
.
.
.
As it stands, you are paying on 3 mouths when momma and daddy stay. If they leave the kid behind, you're paying for one. This also removes the motivation for having the "anchor baby" from the beginning.
.
.
.
.
I know this will never happen because it's "mean" to separate a momma from her child. But, in my scenario, momma is choosing the separation, not us. Agree, with all of the above.
Isaiah 5:20
|
|
|
|
|
