Lurker > Nemu

Yes per the laws of the country. If there is something akin to a pardon for illegal immigrants, Id be fine with that.

I sort of want to for nostalgia and the actual ability to catch them all (except the paywall Mew), but all the Go mechanics are a turnoff.

Webmaster4531 posted...

nemu posted...

Basically 50/50 of luxury or death, so no.

A fit human from now could destroy back then plus modern knowledge. Not exactly a death sentence for some people.

Unless we're getting that money converted if we get transferred, we're getting dropped into an area with no money, likely no life skills that will help you, losing literally everything you love likely leading to depression, probably a language barrier even if you get to somewhere that speaks English, etc.

COVxy posted...

nemu posted...

The point was to turn a non-racist statement into a racist one by using the reactions of people who have nothing better to do than decide everything in their life is based on race. People who saw that and decided it was racist are a large part of the problem in this stupid era of racial tension. I won't say they're anywhere near as bad as the white nationalists, but they're certainly not good for the health of the nation.

But like, that's not what's happening here. Not even close. And while people like that may exist, it's certainly not a large proportion. You instantly jumping to it indicates to me that you are playing a particular political point here, like one of those silly anti-sjws.

Are you talking about right at this moment or back at the start? Right at this moment, yes, it has unfortunately turned into an undeniable slogan. Back when it first became a thing, it was literally nothing turned into something by the instant reactionary nature of today's media.

Basically 50/50 of luxury or death, so no.

COVxy posted...

nemu posted...

COVxy posted...

nemu posted...

Antifar posted...

nemu posted...

The statement itself is entirely neutral

Context exists. It's what makes communication possible. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help anybody.

The context is that it was a series of papers posted on doors with a completely neutral statement. It is such a benign statement that it should be impossible for it to be seen as offensive. The budding racial divide in the country should have had no effect on that statement whatsoever. The fact that it was deemed as offensive shows that there is something very wrong with the current political climate and something very wrong with the people who have since clung to the statement.

When something is clearly used as a slogan by white nationalist groups to insinuate their message without directly saying it, people who insist on the literal direct translation are a bit suspect, tbh.

Currently, yes, but not when it was first put up. There were literally people saying the message itself was offensive. That is the problem. It's the kind of thing that should have been simply taken down and just remained a local talking point in a sane society. The people who instantly jump on the racial bandwagon act as fuel to the racists. It's not their fault that racists exist and propagate, but the do not help the situation at all.

What?

It was a phrase literally created to imply something else. Pretending like the implication doesn't exist makes you seem suspicious.

The point was to turn a non-racist statement into a racist one by using the reactions of people who have nothing better to do than decide everything in their life is based on race. People who saw that and decided it was racist are a large part of the problem in this stupid era of racial tension. I won't say they're anywhere near as bad as the white nationalists, but they're certainly not good for the health of the nation.

VipaGTS posted...

No the message itself is offensive...with context. You keep ignoring the context to make your point.

No, it is simply 100% not. The context was added by the people who see race as the defining part of existence. That was the bait, and they clung onto it almost instantly. There were right ways to react and wrong ways to react, and they chose the wrong way. It would be one thing if people were commenting on the physical posters themselves being a tool, but they chose to react to the statement and only the statement.

COVxy posted...

nemu posted...

Antifar posted...

nemu posted...

The statement itself is entirely neutral

Context exists. It's what makes communication possible. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help anybody.

The context is that it was a series of papers posted on doors with a completely neutral statement. It is such a benign statement that it should be impossible for it to be seen as offensive. The budding racial divide in the country should have had no effect on that statement whatsoever. The fact that it was deemed as offensive shows that there is something very wrong with the current political climate and something very wrong with the people who have since clung to the statement.

When something is clearly used as a slogan by white nationalist groups to insinuate their message without directly saying it, people who insist on the literal direct translation are a bit suspect, tbh.

Currently, yes, but not when it was first put up. There were literally people saying the message itself was offensive. That is the problem. It's the kind of thing that should have been simply taken down and just remained a local talking point in a sane society. The people who instantly jump on the racial bandwagon act as fuel to the racists. It's not their fault that racists exist and propagate, but the do not help the situation at all.

Antifar posted...

nemu posted...

The statement itself is entirely neutral

Context exists. It's what makes communication possible. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help anybody.

The context is that it was a series of papers posted on doors with a completely neutral statement. It is such a benign statement that it should be impossible for it to be seen as offensive. The budding racial divide in the country should have had no effect on that statement whatsoever. The fact that it was deemed as offensive shows that there is something very wrong with the current political climate and something very wrong with the people who have since clung to the statement.

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

It's one of these things where the sign should just be ignored as literally nothing, but people reacting to it in a negative manner has made it evolve into something else like usual.

that "something else" was there the whole time though. you just didn't see it

I'm talking about when the sign was first put up the first time. Literally nobody should have reacted to it because the statement is true. By reacting to it at all, they have turned it into its current state.

you are implying that it was a neutral, contextless gesture the first time. it was not. pointing this out is not what prevents it from being neutral and contextless.

The statement itself is entirely neutral. People reacting to it in such a way is the problem. They fell completely into the narrative that the people who put them up were hoping for.

OctilIery posted...

nemu posted...

And how many do you think rush into it without even truly thinking it?

Literally doesn't matter. That's their choice and they should get to choose exactly how much thought they put into it.

Any major elective life altering procedure should come with some kind of buffer period. I'm entirely pro-choice, but I think we're going too far down the rabbit hole of "it's not a big deal." It's a big fucking deal.

OctilIery posted...

nemu posted...

Why is that bad?

Because no woman should be forced through anything to get an abortion. Full stop.

And how many do you think rush into it without even truly thinking it? A google search shows anywhere from 5% to 30% come to regret it depending on the bias they're trying to push. I think taking a second to sit down and reflect on the reality of it is a good thing. It's ultimately her choice, but it is not a choice that should be made without some kind of reflection.

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

It's one of these things where the sign should just be ignored as literally nothing, but people reacting to it in a negative manner has made it evolve into something else like usual.

that "something else" was there the whole time though. you just didn't see it

I'm talking about when the sign was first put up the first time. Literally nobody should have reacted to it because the statement is true. By reacting to it at all, they have turned it into its current state.

Why is that bad? I think it's a good thing for people to have a chance to reflect on the big decision they are about to make. I'm sure the number of people who can walk into a clinic and just emotionlessly get it done are very rare. That is going to be a decision that weighs on most people for the rest of their life. The bad laws are the ones that try to apply stupid things to prevent people or the dumb funeral shit.

SageHarpuia posted...

I love how when a Christian group does something awful you guys have no problem calling all Christians specifically out on it but when another group does something awful it's "religion in general"

This is a large population of a "developed country" and it is in line with very common views held by people following the religion coming from that region.

It's one of these things where the sign should just be ignored as literally nothing, but people reacting to it in a negative manner has made it evolve into something else like usual.

It's a superb game. It being one of the best probably depends on what aspects of the gameplay you like.

Yes, but I think direct video evidence or a large amount of reputable witnesses should be required before it is handed down. If there is any doubt whatsoever, life should be the maximum.

FursonaNonGrata posted...

nemu posted...

This is no different than people bitching to each other on YouTube that by their fans acting insane that the youtubers themselves are somehow at fault when they havent encouraged anything. Trump is a crass asshole but he has done nothing to actually encourage violence.

Lol, so now were holding the president of the United States to the same standard as YouTube personalities. Wonderful.

Everyone is held to the same standard. Nobody has control over how anyone pays attention to them or interprets their words. I dont think anyone would defend Trump as a well spoken person, but has not actually encouraged violence and anyone who says as much is just following the same tired narrative.

If we had a couple more Bernie shooters, Im sure the same people flocking to these articles wouldnt suddenly be saying Bernie is advocating murder.

This is no different than people bitching to each other on YouTube that by their fans acting insane that the youtubers themselves are somehow at fault when they havent encouraged anything. Trump is a crass asshole but he has done nothing to actually encourage violence.

The wage gap has been fully debunked. It's an overall earnings gap between the sexes across all positions regardless of time worked or CEO vs part time, and there is a proper explanation for it that has nothing to do with discrimination. It's about as real as the pink tax and over-exaggerated college sexual harassment statistics in terms of an actual talking point.

It works in small scale, self-sustaining communities and cannot be applied to anything larger than that. You need close groups of people who know each other so there is an impetus to provide for one another and less chance personal desires will get in the way of the larger community. You need a small number of people because it can only sustain a certain type of lifestyle. It will never work on a wide scale because it assumes humans are generous and complacent with the bare minimum (or way less than the minimum any time it is put into practice).

People are a little too set on the idea of labels and how that makes people view them. I would be fine saying it's straight from a certain standpoint, but it's really not at the core of it. It's like bisexuality if she still has a dick and slightly bi if she's post-op. Whatever you want to call it, it's not 100% straight. I wouldn't make a tiff about it in public for sure because it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

Beating the story and having tried all the mechanics to a reasonable degree is all you need to do to have an informed opinion.

Slow, you don't feel like you have as much control over the character as you should. It's mostly a lack of responsiveness by means of ineptitude or poor implementation.

ArtiRock posted...

nemu posted...

Antifar posted...

nemu posted...

Ancor babies are a problem.

Are they?

The fact that they can happen shows a clear failing in the system that was obviously not intended.

And ignoring the constitution is without a shadow of a doubt worse, and yet you support that. Which no one in their right mind should. Considering we have stupid things like people losing their ability to vote without their knowledge or consent because of "misspellings" that may or may not be their fault, the last thing we need is for people to start saying that you somehow aren't actually a citizen because your parent's name was wrong or something stupid.

No. You want to amend a constitutional amendment. Do it right. Or don't do it at all.

If what he is doing is within the bounds of presidential power, I support it. If what he is doing is impossible/an abuse, then I don't support it. I do think that is a good change that should be made, even if it's done through another avenue.

As long as they are legal, not really as long as you keep it private. Its like the whole My Little Pony thing. If you like to watch cartoons, whatever. If you make it a part of your life to the extent of advertising it to the world no matter where you go, its mockable. If someone is out there talking about how much they like being cucked, people making fun of it is fine.

Why would you do that? Even if youre some kind of sex fiend who needs to spank it at work five times per day, just use your phone.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

What happened to your Namur account, anyway?

Wait, do you think Im someone else?

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

The country can decide how many people it wants to let in. The country can decide the quality of the people let in. If it only wants first world immigrants, that is not a bad thing. If a country wants to take in literally zero people, there is nothing wrong with that. I think that at least some flow is a good thing though.

If you want to put some white nationalist spin on it, guess thats up to you.

At least youre coming clean on it now.

High quality (read: white!) immigrants only huh?

Yeah, at least youre being honest, thats all I wanted

I guess you dont think very highly of Japan.

The country can decide how many people it wants to let in. The country can decide the quality of the people let in. If it only wants first world immigrants, that is not a bad thing. If a country wants to take in literally zero people, there is nothing wrong with that. I think that at least some flow is a good thing though.

If you want to put some white nationalist spin on it, guess thats up to you.

Antifar posted...

nemu posted...

Ancor babies are a problem.

Are they?

The fact that they can happen shows a clear failing in the system that was obviously not intended.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

May I ask why you think Im Republican? Thats part of the problem of your way of thinking. Anyone who thinks X must be X. X is the enemy. The enemy is evil.

Because I've seen your posts here for the better part of a year and you routinely side with them? I don't care what you're registered as, when you continuously support and vote for one side over the other, you are that side. And no, I don't think all Republicans are evil, stop putting words in my mouth.

nemu posted...

Its a loophole because it didnt factor in the existence of such people when it was established. It did not predict how the borders and sovereignty of countries would be developed.

Uh, yes, it absolutely did that, as it was signed into law as part of the Reconstruction amendments following the Civil War. And likewise if that's your argument then I hope you're in favor in completely tossing out the Constitution as a whole and rewriting it to adapt to modern times. If you think the 14th amendment is outdated there are proper channels to amend it, and shoddy EO's aren't one of them.

nemu posted...

The children of illegal citizens should not be citizens of this country. They never should have been. It leads to bad practices like anchor babies. Those who are already citizens should obviously keep their citizenship, but it should not be a thing going forward.

And again, you lack the fortitude to tell people that were made citizens this way you don't think they belong.

The act of assigning a label to someone because of a viewpoint they hold is putting them in a box and declaring them an enemy. That is a bad way of doing things.

And now youre jumping to extremes for no particular reason. Ancor babies are a problem. The wording somewhere should be changed to fix that.

The final lacking fortitude bunk is yet another attempt at labeling. Its also a dumb argument.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

What would that non-existing attribute be?

Pro tip- brown skin bad! Is not an argument

His argument was refuted, so he made something up that he thinks Trump will do as some sort of argument. Once you start doing that, you have left the strike zone.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

Caution999 posted...

We want policies to correct loopholes moving forward.

To take legal citizens and deport them now would cause mass panic and not to mention, just be plain dumb. Most of these people are already contributing members of society.

Yeah I am SURE people will be thrilled to come to America on a visa or green card if they know that if for any reason they have a child here such child will get kicked out of the country as soon as their parents leave.

Very productive for the economy

They can apply for the child. Its not that hard.

Lmao apply how? Listen to you speak.

In a time where 45 is going after most ways to legally immigrate you assume anyone on a visa or green card will be able to get citizenship for their children? Hahahah

Is it so hard to actually argue in reality? Orange man bad gets old fast. Seriously, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate and belittle him. There is no need to make up random bunk just because you cant argue the point on anything but emotion.

When have I said the words orange man bad?
Stop putting words on my mouth

You literally are saying you think things will be hard because youve attributed some non-existent attribute to Trump. That is orange man bad. That is thinking Trump is so evil that he is going to do everything he can to keep everyone out.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

No, youre just being overly emotional based on some non-existent what-if that has nothing to do with the already what-if conversation at hand. And I said basic human rights. We do not need to go out of the way to allow loopholes that give them more privileges than that.

I know you said "basic human rights", and you'd be wrong. They have protected constitutional rights as decided by the courts already. That's not a loophole, that's what the law of the land decided.

And you can try and fail to paint me as being "overly emotional" because I know Republicans like to think of themselves as "completely logical and fact based rational people", but that doesn't change the reality of you guys being too afraid to tell people who are the children of illegals that you don't believe they belong here or are actual citizens. You don't get to have it both ways, either you think they are legal citizens by being born in this nation or they are not. Which is it?

May I ask why you think Im Republican? Thats part of the problem of your way of thinking. Anyone who thinks X must be X. X is the enemy. The enemy is evil.

Its a loophole because it didnt factor in the existence of such people when it was established. It did not predict how the borders and sovereignty of countries would be developed.

The children of illegal citizens should not be citizens of this country. They never should have been. It leads to bad practices like anchor babies. Those who are already citizens should obviously keep their citizenship, but it should not be a thing going forward.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

Caution999 posted...

We want policies to correct loopholes moving forward.

To take legal citizens and deport them now would cause mass panic and not to mention, just be plain dumb. Most of these people are already contributing members of society.

Yeah I am SURE people will be thrilled to come to America on a visa or green card if they know that if for any reason they have a child here such child will get kicked out of the country as soon as their parents leave.

Very productive for the economy

They can apply for the child. Its not that hard.

Lmao apply how? Listen to you speak.

In a time where 45 is going after most ways to legally immigrate you assume anyone on a visa or green card will be able to get citizenship for their children? Hahahah

Is it so hard to actually argue in reality? Orange man bad gets old fast. Seriously, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate and belittle him. There is no need to make up random bunk just because you cant argue the point on anything but emotion.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

Caution999 posted...

We want policies to correct loopholes moving forward.

To take legal citizens and deport them now would cause mass panic and not to mention, just be plain dumb. Most of these people are already contributing members of society.

Yeah I am SURE people will be thrilled to come to America on a visa or green card if they know that if for any reason they have a child here such child will get kicked out of the country as soon as their parents leave.

Very productive for the economy

They can apply for the child. Its not that hard.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

Again, please use actual facts. Show someone here saying it should be applied retroactively. Any minor who has legal citizen parents can be granted citizenship under those parents. The only thing this would change is illegal immigrants who, beyond making sure they have basic human rights, need absolutely no rights under any countrys laws.

You're making a semantic based argument because you know how bad it would look to tell legal citizens they don't count and should be deported. Likewise illegal immigrants are, as the fucking SCOTUS has decided, protected by the Constitution. You do know that, right?

No, youre just being overly emotional based on some non-existent what-if that has nothing to do with the already what-if conversation at hand. And I said basic human rights. We do not need to go out of the way to allow loopholes that give them more privileges than that.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_TheBlueMonk posted...

so my mom is an immigrant. i was born here. am i going to lose my citizenship?

According to a large number of posters here you're not a true American and shouldn't live here. How does that feel?

You what? Why is it so hard to argue with actual facts instead of jumping to appeals to emotion and falsehoods?

Those are the actual facts. If you think that the birthright citizenship is invalid then this person would no longer be considered a citizen and likewise would be an illegal immigrant that should be deported. I know you guys don't like to actually see how your policies impact every day people because then you have to take responsibility for what you support instead of shit posting anonymously, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Again, please use actual facts. Show someone here saying it should be applied retroactively. Any minor who has legal citizen parents can be granted citizenship under those parents. The only thing this would change is illegal immigrants who, beyond making sure they have basic human rights, need absolutely no rights under any countrys laws.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_TheBlueMonk posted...

so my mom is an immigrant. i was born here. am i going to lose my citizenship?

According to a large number of posters here you're not a true American and shouldn't live here. How does that feel?

You what? Why is it so hard to argue with actual facts instead of jumping to appeals to emotion and falsehoods?

Lmao coming from the party of obummer is a secret Kenyan Muslim that wants to take my guns Feeeaaaaarrrr!

See above. You seem to have no actual argument because all you can do is jump to youre irrelevant because X believes Y. I couldnt care less about political affiliation. If the democrats took power tomorrow, literally nothing would change in my daily life.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

_TheBlueMonk posted...

so my mom is an immigrant. i was born here. am i going to lose my citizenship?

According to a large number of posters here you're not a true American and shouldn't live here. How does that feel?

You what? Why is it so hard to argue with actual facts instead of jumping to appeals to emotion and falsehoods?

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/primary-school-campaigns-to-prevent-deportation-of-nine-year-old-pupil-1.3666695

I really struggle to think that people could legit think stuff like this makes any sense. Telling most try solely argue how 'it's the law!' rather than on the supposed merits of it.

The mother is illegal. I certainly feel bad for the child being put through that shit, but should any mother get to come to any country, have a kid, and then be granted citizenship? Because if the kid is granted citizenship but not the mother, people would be crying that the child is being ripped from his mother if he alone was able to stay. Setting a precedent based on feeling for one sob story case is a very bad idea.

Assume the mother is Dutch and then try not to drown on your tears

What? What is with people assuming racism when someone isnt a bleeding heart? Its illegal vs natural/naturalized. That has nothing to do with race.

People here on a visa are legal.
People here who are permanent residents are legal.

And if it truly were about legal vs illegal then you guys wouldnt be trying to end most ways of legal immigration

Why are you jumping around in the topic of conversation? This would do little to affect legal immigration. People who get citizenship get citizenship for their kids basically automatically if they are under 18.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/primary-school-campaigns-to-prevent-deportation-of-nine-year-old-pupil-1.3666695

I really struggle to think that people could legit think stuff like this makes any sense. Telling most try solely argue how 'it's the law!' rather than on the supposed merits of it.

The mother is illegal. I certainly feel bad for the child being put through that shit, but should any mother get to come to any country, have a kid, and then be granted citizenship? Because if the kid is granted citizenship but not the mother, people would be crying that the child is being ripped from his mother if he alone was able to stay. Setting a precedent based on feeling for one sob story case is a very bad idea.

Assume the mother is Dutch and then try not to drown on your tears

What? What is with people assuming racism when someone isnt a bleeding heart? Its illegal vs natural/naturalized. That has nothing to do with race.

NinjaBreakfast posted...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/primary-school-campaigns-to-prevent-deportation-of-nine-year-old-pupil-1.3666695

I really struggle to think that people could legit think stuff like this makes any sense. Telling most try solely argue how 'it's the law!' rather than on the supposed merits of it.

The mother is illegal. I certainly feel bad for the child being put through that shit, but should any mother get to come to any country, have a kid, and then be granted citizenship? Because if the kid is granted citizenship but not the mother, people would be crying that the child is being ripped from his mother if he alone was able to stay. Setting a precedent based on feeling for one sob story case is a very bad idea.

He will most likely be in due to the mii costume in Smash 4. If not for that, I would say people are delusional, but Sakurai has hit two of the biggest most wanted already on top of that costume being in the previous game.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

Is there a reason youre skipping the other two examples? The children in those two are granted citizenship upon the parent becoming a citizen.

Because they quite literally have nothing to do with a child being born within the US. If you're born in this nation, you are a US citizen. Period. If you want to change the Constitution, you need to go through the proper channels, not a shitty EO written by that douche bag Stephen Miller that won't hold up in the courts.

I feel like you are massively confused. Were talking about they hypothetical where that is no longer the case. The entire point of that link is to show that two people here on a visa who have a kid and then get citizenship would not be affected. The only people truly affected are illegal immigrants, which doesnt really matter. I dont believe it will actually be changed, but I think changing it is a good idea.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

A quick search on google shows: https://www.murthy.com/2011/05/27/derivative-citizenship-children-of-naturalized-u-s-citizens/

That seems to show the parents getting citizenship makes getting children citizenship easy, if not automatic. Is that site somehow wrong?

Did you even read your article and see in the example this line:

Mr. and Mrs. Smith were born in the United States and, thus, are U.S. citizens.

Is there a reason youre skipping the other two examples? The children in those two are granted citizenship upon the parent becoming a citizen.

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

Either get citizenship legally or dont come at all.

Being born in this nation legally makes you a citizen. Period.

And it honestly shouldnt. It only applies to people here on vacation, people here on a visa, or people here illegally. The first two have no need for their kids to have dual citizenship. People here illegally dont need any kind of extended rights like that at all. It would likely lessen their desire to come if they know that any child birthed here would not be granted citizenship without a parent with citizenship.

Youre not too bright, sorry.

People on a visa may become citizens later. But if their kids were born before the parents became citizens and reach certain age then the kids will NOT be citizens and will have to leave.

Its a terrible inhumane policy. But hey, go white power right?

Then go through whatever process needed to get them citizenship. People on a Visa can plan for that ahead of time and work under those parameters. What does this have to do with race? Do you think only non-white people come here legally and illegally?

THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THEM CITIZENSHIP.

Thats what birthright citizenship is for. But you and the very fine people want to get done with it.

A quick search on google shows: https://www.murthy.com/2011/05/27/derivative-citizenship-children-of-naturalized-u-s-citizens/

That seems to show the parents getting citizenship makes getting children citizenship easy, if not automatic. Is that site somehow wrong?

Hawaiian_punch posted...

nemu posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

nemu posted...

Either get citizenship legally or dont come at all.

Being born in this nation legally makes you a citizen. Period.

And it honestly shouldnt. It only applies to people here on vacation, people here on a visa, or people here illegally. The first two have no need for their kids to have dual citizenship. People here illegally dont need any kind of extended rights like that at all. It would likely lessen their desire to come if they know that any child birthed here would not be granted citizenship without a parent with citizenship.

Youre not too bright, sorry.

People on a visa may become citizens later. But if their kids were born before the parents became citizens and reach certain age then the kids will NOT be citizens and will have to leave.

Its a terrible inhumane policy. But hey, go white power right?

Then go through whatever process needed to get them citizenship. People on a Visa can plan for that ahead of time and work under those parameters. What does this have to do with race? Do you think only non-white people come here legally and illegally?