How about a Bill that would allow illegals & their anchors to live & work in sanctuary states only & forbid their travel outside of sanctuary ‘zones’?

BrokeLoser

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2016
40,129
22,395
2,615
MEXIFORNIA
Politicians are you listening?
Wouldn’t something like that appease both parties?
California and states like it could basically become Mexico (like it is already) and core Americans who never wanted to live in Mexico among Mexico’s people could relocate to a state where Mexico’s people can not travel to or reside?
 
A very large part of the problem with the American system is that there's no consistency in the law across an entire country.

Don't aggravate the situation and make it worse than it already is.

Many are now having a closer look at the parliamentary system.
 
Politicians are you listening?
Wouldn’t something like that appease both parties?
California and states like it could basically become Mexico (like it is already) and core Americans who never wanted to live in Mexico among Mexico’s people could relocate to a state where Mexico’s people can not travel to or reside?
That would fit in line with the conservative desire for a bigger police state for sure
 
If they don't stop at the border, do you really think they would stop at the city limits or state line?
 
Politicians are you listening?
Wouldn’t something like that appease both parties?
California and states like it could basically become Mexico (like it is already) and core Americans who never wanted to live in Mexico among Mexico’s people could relocate to a state where Mexico’s people can not travel to or reside?
I say no. We need zero illegal immigration. We need to implement President Eisenhower's Operation Wetback he initiated to deport illegals. It needs to be done on a larger scale though compared to when it was done back in the 50s.

Yes! That was the name of it, "Operation Wetback", and nobody had a problem with it being called that.
 
Don't aggravate the situation and make it worse than it already is.
I offered a solution that seems awfully bipartisan. Those who believe that Emma Lazarus wrote our immigration policy should embrace this, those who think borders are racist should embrace this and those who love America for its Americans and believe we have a right to sovereignty should embrace this….Everybody wins…no?
 
Politicians are you listening?
Wouldn’t something like that appease both parties?
California and states like it could basically become Mexico (like it is already) and core Americans who never wanted to live in Mexico among Mexico’s people could relocate to a state where Mexico’s people can not travel to or reside?
Why don't you just fucking move?
 
Politicians are you listening?
Wouldn’t something like that appease both parties?
California and states like it could basically become Mexico (like it is already) and core Americans who never wanted to live in Mexico among Mexico’s people could relocate to a state where Mexico’s people can not travel to or reside?
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]
 
To put it bluntly and a bit crudely, you have a situation in states like Alabami where men are taking a sister.wife, while some other states sort of frown on the habit.
Or at least try to keep it below the swamp's surface.

Government needs to come together on one standard that suits all. Rights and freedoms being the top priority!

I loves my king and the fact that we observe him as a figurehead at least.
 
No. How about kicking out all illegals and following immigration laws. If you go through the legal process to be a US citizen I will be the first to shake your hand and welcome you. If you have a legitimate claim for political asylum I have no issue but if you can carry a rifle you need to stay in your country and fight for it.
 
To put it bluntly and a bit crudely, you have a situation in states like Alabami where men are taking a sister.wife, while some other states sort of frown on the habit.
Are you talking about the off the charts level of incestual rape that goes on in the dark hoods and barrios of Alabami?
Isn’t it racist to point out such facts?
"Race and ethnicity are an important factor in identified sexual abuse. African American children have almost twice the risk of sexual abuse than white children. Children of Hispanic ethnicity have a slightly greater risk than non-Hispanic white children."
https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all_statistics_20150619.pdf
 
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]
I thought we have the ability to change laws to appease more people… Remember that progression stuff?
 

How about a Bill that would allow illegals & their anchors to live & work in sanctuary states only & forbid their travel outside of sanctuary ‘zones’?​

But only if we capped their hourly wage permanently. Any new immigrant could only make a maximum of $10 per hour for the rest of their life in America.
 
Are you talking about the off the charts level of incestual rape that goes on in the dark hoods and barrios of Alabami?
Isn’t it racist to point out such facts?
"Race and ethnicity are an important factor in identified sexual abuse. African American children have almost twice the risk of sexual abuse than white children. Children of Hispanic ethnicity have a slightly greater risk than non-Hispanic white children."
https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all_statistics_20150619.pdf

You might want to rethink the stereotypes for Alabamians.
 

Forum List

Back
Top