CDZ MASS DEPORTATION, Not Amnesty

[Roadrunner]

there are other ways to reduce populations ---other than a complicated
deportation procedure for each case-------

It's not complicated at all.

"Got a green card?"
"Got a visa?"
"No?"
"Get in the truck."

I cannot believe I posted in the CDZ.

I'll discuss what to do with working illegals v non-working chronically unemployable no skills Americans where I can more freely express myself.

 

[Rotagilla]

Really? Why is that? Who said? Don't make up artificial conditions that have to be met.

Illegal means "illegal". There are no varying degrees of illegality when foreigners infiltrate our country.

Close and enforce the border.
Deport illegals.
Problem solved.

There are, at minimum, 12 million people here illegally. Even if you deported one million a year, which is a logistical impossibility, it would take a minimum of a dozen years to get them all out, but in reality, much, much longer.

If we cut off welfare, the dependent class would drive them out in a frantic attempt to get jobs previously too onerous for Americans, as they madly scrambled to avoid starvation by any means necessary including WORKING FOR A LIVING!

Amnesty for illegals weakens our economy, spreads poverty and leads to higher government dependency which naturally leads to votes for whichever party gives away the most "benefits".

Close and enforce the border.
Deport all illegals.

 

[Unkotare]

The United States is being invaded by Latin Americans from a place where life is cheap.

The United States is not being "invaded," and Latin Americans value life as much as anyone.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Unk. I wonder how long it'll be until American teachers are trained to identify pupils who they suspect have served as child soldiers in the country they came from. That's part of teacher training in the U.K.

Not a matter of sleeping at night, just a matter of reality. As for the UK, I couldn't care less.

 

[Unkotare]

yet you try to fool people regularly.

Try to focus on the subject instead of casting empty, false accusations against me personally, got it?

 

[Unkotare]

If we cut off welfare, the dependent class would drive them out in a frantic attempt to get jobs previously too onerous for Americans, as they madly scrambled to avoid starvation by any means necessary including WORKING FOR A LIVING!

1) We are not about to "cut off welfare," and you don't really want to.

2) There is no work "too onerous" for Americans.

3) The unemployed living in and around urban areas are unlikely to migrate vast distances for seasonal agricultural work (for example), not because they're lazy but because it's impractical.

4) We are not about to sit around and let multitudes starve in the street. It may be a satisfying thing to proclaim emotionally (although what that says about a person...), but you know we are not.

 

[irosie91]

If we cut off welfare, the dependent class would drive them out in a frantic attempt to get jobs previously too onerous for Americans, as they madly scrambled to avoid starvation by any means necessary including WORKING FOR A LIVING!

1) We are not about to "cut off welfare," and you don't really want to.

2) There is no work "too onerous" for Americans.

3) The unemployed living in and around urban areas are unlikely to migrate vast distances for seasonal agricultural work (for example), not because they're lazy but because it's impractical.

4) We are not about to sit around and let multitudes starve in the street. It may be a satisfying thing to proclaim emotionally (although what that says about a person...), but you know we are not.

starvation is not acceptable in the USA------nor should there be any----
based on the FOOD STAMP PROGRAM-----which ---contrary to
propaganda ------provides every reasonably ---not too stupid and not
to disabled and not too insane person in the USA with a more than adequate
amount of money for procurement of a very adequate diet----better than
most people have thruout the world. I am a big supporter of food stamps----
mal nutrition in the USA---is a social problem related to addiction,
homelessness, mental incapacity etc. -----we got lots of social problems

 

[jasonnfree]

There is no reason to be so crass about it, nor spend the money neccesary to transport 12M back to Mexico, or wherever.

The money to do it isn't a problem.

A patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge would command the Sec of State to order the ambassadors of the main offending countries to a meeting at the white house..
At this meeting a patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment would tell the ambassadors that as of 20 minutes ago the border has been locked down and deportations will begin.

A patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge politics would then tell these ambassadors that in order to fund these deportations all assets that nation has in this country will be frozen and any future payments, grants, aid, etc...money will be suspended and applied to the costs of deportation.

...but unfortunately we don't have a patriotic president in office who places the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge politics.

millions and millions of citizens want the border closed and enforced. We don't need any "fast tracks"..we don't need and "pathways to citizenship"... we don't need any "dream acts..or any other fanciful names the left wants to concoct...We want the border closed.

obama wants the border open in order to further damage the nation.
Deny it?

Ok ...... then explain why an open border and allowing illegals to flood across is a good idea.

It's not just Obama and democrats. The welcome mat was put out decades ago. More people, more business activity, also keeps wages down. When republicans are in control do they worry about businesses hiring illegals the same as they worry about illegals voting? Do they call for enforcing heavy fines on employers for hiring illegals? No. For a fraction of the money we spend interfering in the middle east we could control illegal immigration like other countries do.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That was then. This is now.

Oh thanks..we didn't know..

And the issue must be handled much more delicately than it was 60 years ago.

Really? Why is that? Who said? Don't make up artificial conditions that have to be met.

Illegal means "illegal". There are no varying degrees of illegality when foreigners infiltrate our country.

Close and enforce the border.
Deport illegals.
Problem solved.

How?
Who will pay for it?

I asked this here

Round them up and deport them US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And no one could really answer.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rotagilla -

I thought the topic here was deportations.

Yes...illegals.

I don't want to deport anyone, I just wanted to point out that the US has a longer track record of this than simply going back to Ike.

It was a good idea...too bad it wasn't enforced and executed.

Lincoln thought it was a good idea, too....but we wander off topic.

Close and enforce the border.
Deport illegals.
Problem solved.

How?

How will you pay for it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That was then. This is now. And the issue must be handled much more delicately than it was 60 years ago. But the problem is that Obama is not a delicate person. Nor is he diplomatic. He's simply a charismatic figurehead. A puppet hung upon his own self-manipulated strings.

Yes, action must be taken. Lawful action, not Executive Fiat action.

I agree with what you say, except that I see no reason why a mass deportation should be handled anymore delicately that it was 60 years ago. I'd say after carrying on an imperialist war against us all these decades, the Mexicans are lucky we haven't done a repeat of 1848, only this time acquiring ALL of Mexico, and governing it, to stop it from using us as their # 1 source of income, which we are.

Actually, its the US who has waged war on Mexico but be that as it may, HOW will you affect this "mass deportation"?

I posted facts here -

Round them up and deport them US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How will you accomplish this?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.

I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.

In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.

The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.

This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com

While I agree that we need to secure the border and stop any further migration of additional illegals into this country, the idea of deporting upwards of 20 million people is about the dumbest thing we could do, unless destroying our economy is at the top of our list. I'm sure you probably cannot figure out why that would be devastating to the economy, but hey, it would.

Exactly right.

Those who keep repeating the meaningless demand that we simply round them up and deport them have no clue what is involved or what we would have to do if we were able to actually do it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.

I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.

In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.

The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.

This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com

While I agree that we need to secure the border and stop any further migration of additional illegals into this country, the idea of deporting upwards of 20 million people is about the dumbest thing we could do, unless destroying our economy is at the top of our list. I'm sure you probably cannot figure out why that would be devastating to the economy, but hey, it would.

Oh,please DO explain it for us.
Make sure and use a lot of hyperbole and unfounded speculation...Make up lots of fantasy scenarios, too..those are always funny to read...

Close and enforce the border.
Deport all illegals.

How about the fantasy scenario of "deport all the illegals"?

Seriously, think it through.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rather than talk about Obama's amnesty, we should be talking about Eisenhower's MASS DEPORTATION PROGRAM in 1954 (Operation Wetback). We should be insisting on Operation Wetback II, and NOTHING LESS. We should be talking about mass deportation, because that is what needs to be done to restore America back to its proper status of AMERICANS holding jobs, not being unemployed, wages going to sales in US stores not Mexican ones, US health workers dealing with US diseases, not foreign ones, etc etc.

I'm tired of hearing the immigration issue being discussed on Obama's terms and mindset (amnesty). I say we should be talking about it on Eisenhower's terms and mindset > mass deportation. And it makes more sense tactically as well. If you sell a car for $5K, you ask for $6K, not $4K.

In 1954, I made a current events report to my 4th grade class, with a newspaper clipping about Operation Wetback. I recall that INS agents (which were a fraction of the # of ICE agents we have now, went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens, and deporting them. They deported 2.1 million (more than any US president, despite false claims from Obama supporters), and another 1 million fled on their own back to Mexico.

The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico, where Mexican authorities objected loudly. Eisenhower paid zero attention to their objections, and when the Mexicans refused to send boats out to the ships, the illegals were boated in and dumped in the shallow water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US.

This is the way illegal immigration should be handled today, and how it should be discussed. Lastly, it is interesting to note that by 1959, illegal immigration in the US, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com

There is no reason to be so crass about it, nor spend the money neccesary to transport 12M back to Mexico, or wherever.

The solution is simple. A $100K fine per employee who is not eligible to work in the US.

That catches not just the "wetbacks" it also catches the rest who come here on work visas and then just say after that visa has expired.

Not many companies are going to be willing to pay a $100,000 fine for illegal employees.

No jobs, and they leave on their own.

Oh sure, that leaves probably 2 or 3 million who are working cash jobs that the IRS will never catch them, but we can absorb 2-3M illegal immigrants no sweat.

$100K per illegal employee.

You really think Repubs would vote to do that the 1%?

Who do you think owns most big businesses that currently advertise for workers in Mexico. Or do you think they're all like Romney who fired his illegals because he was running for prez?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That was then. This is now. And the issue must be handled much more delicately than it was 60 years ago. But the problem is that Obama is not a delicate person. Nor is he diplomatic. He's simply a charismatic figurehead. A puppet hung upon his own self-manipulated strings.

Yes, action must be taken. Lawful action, not Executive Fiat action.

An invasion shouldn't be met with a delicate response. The United States is being invaded by Latin Americans from a place where life is cheap. Just the same as Britain is being invaded by peasants from the Third World where life is even cheaper.

There is no "invasion" and the only ones who don't value life are racists.

 

[skye]

Deport them.


Deport them all.

 

[skye]

I totally agree with the OP.

The illegals from Mexico are not prepared to wait their turn for US welfare. They jump the fence.

That ain't fair for those thousands who wait in line ...to get American money

Do it legally.... wait for your American tax money welfare legally.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Deport them.


Deport them all.

How?

Why can't people think this through?

 

[Swagger]

That was then. This is now. And the issue must be handled much more delicately than it was 60 years ago. But the problem is that Obama is not a delicate person. Nor is he diplomatic. He's simply a charismatic figurehead. A puppet hung upon his own self-manipulated strings.

Yes, action must be taken. Lawful action, not Executive Fiat action.

An invasion shouldn't be met with a delicate response. The United States is being invaded by Latin Americans from a place where life is cheap. Just the same as Britain is being invaded by peasants from the Third World where life is even cheaper.

There is no "invasion" and the only ones who don't value life are racists.

Do you have any idea how desperate that made you look?

 

[irosie91]

There is no reason to be so crass about it, nor spend the money neccesary to transport 12M back to Mexico, or wherever.

The money to do it isn't a problem.

A patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge would command the Sec of State to order the ambassadors of the main offending countries to a meeting at the white house..
At this meeting a patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment would tell the ambassadors that as of 20 minutes ago the border has been locked down and deportations will begin.

A patriotic president who placed the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge politics would then tell these ambassadors that in order to fund these deportations all assets that nation has in this country will be frozen and any future payments, grants, aid, etc...money will be suspended and applied to the costs of deportation.

...but unfortunately we don't have a patriotic president in office who places the well being of america ahead of political agendas and racial resentment and revenge politics.

millions and millions of citizens want the border closed and enforced. We don't need any "fast tracks"..we don't need and "pathways to citizenship"... we don't need any "dream acts..or any other fanciful names the left wants to concoct...We want the border closed.

obama wants the border open in order to further damage the nation.
Deny it?

Ok ...... then explain why an open border and allowing illegals to flood across is a good idea.

It's not just Obama and democrats. The welcome mat was put out decades ago. More people, more business activity, also keeps wages down. When republicans are in control do they worry about businesses hiring illegals the same as they worry about illegals voting? Do they call for enforcing heavy fines on employers for hiring illegals? No. For a fraction of the money we spend interfering in the middle east we could control illegal immigration like other countries do.

what does American policy in the Middle East have to do with illegal immigration in the USA?
I find the juxtaposition ODD

 

[Rotagilla]

Deport them.


Deport them all.

How?

Trucks.
Trains.