EatMorChikin
Gold Member
Deporting illegal invaders would require a repeal of the 14th? That is hilarious! Illegals are not protected under our constitution, they are criminals.
Deport all illegals?
- Thread starter Luddly Neddite
- Start date
Deporting illegal invaders would require a repeal of the 14th? That is hilarious! Illegals are not protected under our constitution, they are criminals.
EatMorChikin
Gold Member
And how is that germain to this topic?
It wouldn't require a repeal of the 14th, but it does require some mechanism in place to satisfy the "due process" and "equal protection" facets of the Amendment. Thanks to case law, Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as two of the earliest examples, illegals are protected.
To be honest, I feel that it's wrong that anyone that happens to stroll across the border is automagically afforded nearly all (probably will be all soon) of the protections and rights that are granted to U.S. Citizens.
I wish I knew the answer.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Come down on the employers.
Make sure illegals can't get government benefits.
Deport on first contact with government.
Stop this stupid catch and release bullshit.
They'll start to deport themselves.
EatMorChikin
Gold Member
You make it downright impossible for them to stay. Unless they enjoy living under bridges. They should not be rented to or sold property to. But the problem is, greedy assholes who don't care where the money came from. And employers wanting cheap labor, and employees who wont demand raises.
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 11,424
- 5,498
- 400
It is beyond comprehension that any American does not understand that a job filled by an illegal is a job an American can NOT fill. Sure, the labor cost rises, but if we put Americans to work, lower the unemployment rate, we no longer have to pay unemployment compensation. Take away the freebies from illegals, and our budget drops tremendously as far as social services. Few US citizens on them, no illegals.
How anyone can ignore this economic reality is beyond me if they went to even grammar school.
As an aside..........I am an RVer who belongs to a large club. We will not go to California even though we think it is beautiful, (Yosemite, Sequioa, Lassen Volcanic, etc) because in many of our eyes, it is the 1st socialist state in the union outside of New York, and RVs aren't really good in New York, lol. We refuse to spend dollars in California, and we are not alone. We want California to support itself with all the illegals it welcomed in; and we say, "good luck!"
And, we go around Illinois also, although we may have to reconsider after they were smart enough to elect a conservative business man as governor. Our philosophy is........why give tourism dollars to a state that can't even get water to its citizens due to LEFTY policies? The most affective way to punish them, is deny them tax dollars. This is a growing trend in the RV community, and I hope it continues.
Trust me, there is a group who wants to fill their motorhomes or in bed tanks of their trucks that pull 5th wheelers and trailers, and drive from Nevada to Yosemite with full refrigerators, then turn around and get back across the Nevada border. That would allow the only monies they get to be the fees for the campgrounds. We are considering it, but even giving them a nickel in tourism tax dollars irks the hell out of us, lol.
How anyone can ignore this economic reality is beyond me if they went to even grammar school.
As an aside..........I am an RVer who belongs to a large club. We will not go to California even though we think it is beautiful, (Yosemite, Sequioa, Lassen Volcanic, etc) because in many of our eyes, it is the 1st socialist state in the union outside of New York, and RVs aren't really good in New York, lol. We refuse to spend dollars in California, and we are not alone. We want California to support itself with all the illegals it welcomed in; and we say, "good luck!"
And, we go around Illinois also, although we may have to reconsider after they were smart enough to elect a conservative business man as governor. Our philosophy is........why give tourism dollars to a state that can't even get water to its citizens due to LEFTY policies? The most affective way to punish them, is deny them tax dollars. This is a growing trend in the RV community, and I hope it continues.
Trust me, there is a group who wants to fill their motorhomes or in bed tanks of their trucks that pull 5th wheelers and trailers, and drive from Nevada to Yosemite with full refrigerators, then turn around and get back across the Nevada border. That would allow the only monies they get to be the fees for the campgrounds. We are considering it, but even giving them a nickel in tourism tax dollars irks the hell out of us, lol.
Last edited:
First off it more like 20 mil. I never believe the liberal estimates! Over inflate as a scare tactic works well for libs.
If the numbers are true that would be $1-1.4 bil a year! Money well spend! IL pays more than in school and hospital care for illegals.
Lol you really need to read the 14th amendment before you speak on it!
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 11,424
- 5,498
- 400
Build the fence, then start deporting all of them! Harsh? No. We would save the money in welfare benefits, and our tax base would rise as Americans went back to work taking those jobs, and compensation IN those jobs would rise also.
It sounds messy, doesn't it. Yeah, it does to me also, but the truth is....................if the correct thing to do, was the easy thing to do; then everyone would do the correct thing, now wouldn't they!
We have to decide as a country, if we are for OUR countrymen, or for the world as equals to our concern. It is not just illegals from here or there we need to remove, it is from everywhere, so no racism here. It is all about OUR country and its viability. We can NOT save anybody if we can't save ourselves.
Let me also say, "I am not a fan of Trump, but he has done us all a favor by having this brought to the forefront." The fanatasy put forth by libs and rinos that this is all a good thing has been disproven over, and over, and over again statistically. Americans are suffering, especially poor Americans, because of this policy.
It is more than obvious that BOTH partys are doing this for political purposes. I am personally not willing to vote to elect ANYBODY whos policies will hurt any American for the comfort of a foreigner, just because they ILLEGALLY snuck into our country. I should say to a black teenager wanting a job, "screw you kid, I am voting for Jebster?" I do not think so!
I am all about breaking the cycle of poverty for my American bretheren. The number 1 way to do this is for them to get a job; any job, and start working their way up the economic chain. Having foreigners in positions they could have to start that climb is UNAMERICAN in my book.
So yes, absolutely yes, start throwing them all out, no matter from whence they came; at least until you get AMERICAN unemployment down to 3.5%, and the participation rate for Americans up to 90%.
It sounds messy, doesn't it. Yeah, it does to me also, but the truth is....................if the correct thing to do, was the easy thing to do; then everyone would do the correct thing, now wouldn't they!
We have to decide as a country, if we are for OUR countrymen, or for the world as equals to our concern. It is not just illegals from here or there we need to remove, it is from everywhere, so no racism here. It is all about OUR country and its viability. We can NOT save anybody if we can't save ourselves.
Let me also say, "I am not a fan of Trump, but he has done us all a favor by having this brought to the forefront." The fanatasy put forth by libs and rinos that this is all a good thing has been disproven over, and over, and over again statistically. Americans are suffering, especially poor Americans, because of this policy.
It is more than obvious that BOTH partys are doing this for political purposes. I am personally not willing to vote to elect ANYBODY whos policies will hurt any American for the comfort of a foreigner, just because they ILLEGALLY snuck into our country. I should say to a black teenager wanting a job, "screw you kid, I am voting for Jebster?" I do not think so!
I am all about breaking the cycle of poverty for my American bretheren. The number 1 way to do this is for them to get a job; any job, and start working their way up the economic chain. Having foreigners in positions they could have to start that climb is UNAMERICAN in my book.
So yes, absolutely yes, start throwing them all out, no matter from whence they came; at least until you get AMERICAN unemployment down to 3.5%, and the participation rate for Americans up to 90%.
I
Indofred
Guest
All immigrants and their families from 1492 onwards should be returned to their home countries.
charwin95
Gold Member
Don't do that. My grandparents migrated to US in 1917. lol
I
Indofred
Guest
I'll let you off if you don't complain about Mexicans.
charwin95
Gold Member
Indo, Just about everyone I know are complaining about illegals ( especially Mexicans ) long before Obama. Even Mexicans US citizens are complaining.
charwin95
Gold Member
How you or Trump or anyone can make that happen?
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 146,899
- 33,320
- 2,180
Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,975
- 10,000
- 2,040
- Thread starter
- #59
Cracks me up that so many actually believe we never had illegals until Obama was elected.
But, those are the same people who ignore the fact that Obama has deported more than any other president and has increased Border Patrol on our 2000 mile long border to more than 18,500.
Repubs fought him on that just as they continue to demand that our other borders remain wide open. And yet, McConnell is currently fighting the president's efforts to lessen the spying the NSA is doing on Americans. The bill passed the house but McConnell has said he will make sure it does not pass the senate.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I've heard about illegals - and the problems associated with them - for as long as I can remember (several decades).
By which metric was that "fact" determined? Was it his number of exclusions, deportations, removals, returns, expedited removals, or formal removals?
Because of changing terminology, it's difficult to draw a direct comparison between 0's numbers and any other presidents'.
Before 1996, there was a distinction between those who were "excluded", or prevented from entering the U.S., and those who were actually "deported", or removed from the U.S. after they were already here. After 1996, both procedures were combined under the term "removal" and the old terms removed from usage. Another change is that immigrants who were apprehended at the border and prevented from entering the U.S. were part of a category called "voluntary departure", which was changed to "returns" in 2006.
The only category that carries any penalty at all is "formal removal" (what I consider closest to classic deportation), which entails a courtroom, a judge, and transport back to the country of origin. This results in not being legally able to re-enter the U.S. for 5-20 years, but doesn't mean that they won't come back. "Expedited removals" are similar, but there is no court appearance involved, no bar to re-entry, and no meaningful discouragement from returning to the U.S. at a later date.
That's all well and good, but with the new "must retreat" rules of engagement they're saddled with, it wouldn't matter if there were 1,850,000 agents - they would still be ordered by policy to run away from any hostile encounters, including rock-throwers.
McConnell is a spineless RINO; if there were any justice at all in the world, he'd be dumped, along with Boner, on the dungheap of history.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Today I voted for Alex Mealer and Met her Opponent, Briscoe Cain
- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 1
-
"Palestinian" guide for jounalists, what words and definitions to use...- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
-
