I have a few questions for liberals on immigration

[Moonglow]

Like I said, most liberals do NOT believe in having immigration policies or laws or issuing visas or having a border. The entire world is entitled to live here and Americans are obligated to pay for their existence.

Damn that liberal Reagan!!

 

[K9Buck]

Like I said, most liberals do NOT believe in having immigration policies or laws or issuing visas or having a border. The entire world is entitled to live here and Americans are obligated to pay for their existence.

Damn that liberal Reagan!!

Reagan was snookered by the lying left. Conservatives are approaching at least 50 years of wanting to follow an agreed-upon policy that liberals refuse to follow and violate to the tune of many millions of people who overstay their visas or just walk across the border.

But, yea, liberals support immigration laws and deportations. LOL!

 

[Moonglow]

Like I said, most liberals do NOT believe in having immigration policies or laws or issuing visas or having a border. The entire world is entitled to live here and Americans are obligated to pay for their existence.

Damn that liberal Reagan!!

Reagan was snookered by the lying left. Conservatives are approaching at least 50 years of wanting to follow an agreed-upon policy that liberals refuse to follow and violate to the tune of many millions of people who overstay their visas or just walk across the border.

But, yea, liberals support immigration laws and deportations. LOL!

Yada, yada, yada, the next president gave amnesty to illegas via the family fairness bill which failed and was implemented by Bush via executive order....There are more in the future of the US, passed by both dems and repubs..So don't give me that BS line about it always them fellers over there, but ignore the ones I like.....

 

[K9Buck]

So don't give me that BS line about it always them fellers over there, but ignore the ones I like.....

There are certainly Republicans complicit.

 

[K9Buck]

Who can forget this gem? But yea, the idea that liberals want to protect criminal illegals from deportation is a "right-wing lie", right? LOL.

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

 

[ChrisL]

While I do feel sorry for some illegals that have been here for a long time, haven't made trouble, have contributed to our economy, etc, we cannot keep doing these "dreamer act" types of things. It is like shooting yourself in the foot! It is very important to control the immigration into your country.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm going to build a wall, a big beautiful wall, believe me

Every appearance, Trump promised his Great Wall
What happened? It is never mentioned any more
The Republican budget has tax cuts for billionaires but no funding for a major infrastructure project like a wall

 

[rightwinger]

While I do feel sorry for some illegals that have been here for a long time, haven't made trouble, have contributed to our economy, etc, we cannot keep doing these "dreamer act" types of things. It is like shooting yourself in the foot! It is very important to control the immigration into your country.

Dreamers are capable of making a major contribution to this country
Let's let them

 

[K9Buck]

Dreamers are capable of making a major contribution to this country
Let's let them

I agree. In fact, let everyone in. Let's not have immigration policies or a border.

 

[Humorme]

Should America have immigration laws and, if so, what should they be? And then, should they be enforced?

I hear many liberals claim that they don't support open borders but then object to anyone being deported. It seems to me that liberals don't have America to have an immigration policy nor a border.

There are reasons you don't get direct answers. Me, personally, I have a stalker that misrepresents my views so that I cannot express them on the boards. But, let's look at it realistically:

The overwhelming majority of people do not understand immigration. The federal government defines an immigrant as:

"An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)."

Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens | Internal Revenue Service

Okay, that is all well and good, but what we should strive for is to allow people to come here and work without becoming "lawful permanent residents." An employer should be able to hire whomever they want and we regulate the flow of workers by giving substantial tax incentives to employers who hire an all American workforce.

Meanwhile, if anything, we should have a two year moratorium on all persons wanting to enter the United States for the purposes of permanent residence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If conservatives aren't lying, they're being idiotic.

Again, no one advocates 'open borders' or 'letting everyone in' - that anyone advocates such a thing is another rightwing lie.

As for Dreamers, these are individuals who entered the United States legally and subsequently lost their legal status through no fault of their own. Or who were brought to the United States absent authorization as children.

In either case, it's a fundamental principle of Constitutional law that children not be punished for the crimes of their parents.

The status of Dreamers can be easily resolved by Congress, but no resolution is forthcoming because of the fear and bigotry of Congressional Republicans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who can forget this gem? But yea, the idea that liberals want to protect criminal illegals from deportation is a "right-wing lie", right? LOL.

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Wrong again.

From your linked article:

‘…the Sheriff's Department said that at the time Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the jail "there was no active (CE) warrant or judicial order of removal for him."
[…]
"ICE knew that he had been deported five times," he said. "You would have thought he met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."

Immigration "detainers," or "holds," have become controversial in recent years as some local law enforcement agencies have fought back against the federal government's requests to hold suspects based on their immigration status, arguing that the practice costs them money and damages their credibility with the communities they serve.

In addition, federal courts have struck down cases involving "holds," stating that these detentions are not voluntary and violate the Fourth Amendment, according to civil rights organizations.’ ibid

No one was ‘released’ against the request of Federal authorities – there was no order or warrant requesting that be done, where such requests have been determined un-Constitutional.

Yes, more rightwing lies.

 

[JoeMoma]

Should America have immigration laws and, if so, what should they be? And then, should they be enforced?

I hear many liberals claim that they don't support open borders but then object to anyone being deported. It seems to me that liberals don't have America to have an immigration policy nor a border.

I don't support open borders and don't object to select people being deported, just not everyone. Anyone who has a criminal record (beyond speeding tickets) gets the boot. If you're not in school or don't have a job you get the boot.

I think the US NEEDS immigrants and think those who risked everything to enter this country and have proved themselves to be law-abiding and productive should get a chance to stay. They are generally the kind of Americans we want. Everyone, regardless of social class, ethnicity, or religion is capable of contributing and should be treated the same.

So are you saying that illegals get to cut to the front of the line over others who are actually following the lawful process?

No, the notion is idiotic and ridiculous.

One is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization, or entering the country lawfully and subsequently losing his legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are seeking asylum as refugees, and may remain in the country until their refugee status is verified; if they’re not a legitimate refugee, they’re deported.

Clearly the problem is conservatives’ ignorance of the law; or conservatives who know the law but oppose the law the consequence of their bigotry and unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Would it make you feel better to call them Alleged illegal immigrants. Otherwise, anyone who enters the country in ways that violate the law are welcome based on your logic as long as they stay below the radar of ICE. That kind of thinking is part of the reason we have perhaps uncountable millions of “undocumented” immigrants in the country.

Bottom line: people can say that they are not for open borders all they want, but if they are not for reasonable ways to enforce the immigration laws that restrict the borders then they are de facto for open borders.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't have a problem with deportation. I just think it is heartless to go after otherwise law abiding families. We can't deport them all because that would cost too much, so why not concentrate on the crooks first?

So breaking a Federal Immigration Law, where the term “illegal” immigration references by legal definition, makes the family law abiding?

Also, what’s the purpose of “citizenship” if you don’t need to be one to receive benefits (according to what liberal states, like California, provide in state taxpayer assistance)

I said "otherwise law abiding" dumb ass

Try using that excuse for running the red light, but I otherwise stopped for the traffic cop.

I noticed you skipped over that citizenship question. Can’t provide an answer?

Not an accurate comparison. More like a cop stopping someone going 2 MPH over the speed limit instead of trying to stop someone going 30 mph over the speed limit.

Is it okay for people to illegally enter the country at 2 miles per hour but not at 30 miles per hour?

 

[K9Buck]

Who can forget this gem? But yea, the idea that liberals want to protect criminal illegals from deportation is a "right-wing lie", right? LOL.

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Wrong again.

From your linked article:

‘…the Sheriff's Department said that at the time Lopez-Sanchez was booked into the jail "there was no active (CE) warrant or judicial order of removal for him."
[…]
"ICE knew that he had been deported five times," he said. "You would have thought he met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."

Immigration "detainers," or "holds," have become controversial in recent years as some local law enforcement agencies have fought back against the federal government's requests to hold suspects based on their immigration status, arguing that the practice costs them money and damages their credibility with the communities they serve.

In addition, federal courts have struck down cases involving "holds," stating that these detentions are not voluntary and violate the Fourth Amendment, according to civil rights organizations.’ ibid

No one was ‘released’ against the request of Federal authorities – there was no order or warrant requesting that be done, where such requests have been determined un-Constitutional.

Yes, more rightwing lies.

The article I linked stated no such thing. You are a liar.

 

[Humorme]

Should America have immigration laws and, if so, what should they be? And then, should they be enforced?

I hear many liberals claim that they don't support open borders but then object to anyone being deported. It seems to me that liberals don't have America to have an immigration policy nor a border.

I don't support open borders and don't object to select people being deported, just not everyone. Anyone who has a criminal record (beyond speeding tickets) gets the boot. If you're not in school or don't have a job you get the boot.

I think the US NEEDS immigrants and think those who risked everything to enter this country and have proved themselves to be law-abiding and productive should get a chance to stay. They are generally the kind of Americans we want. Everyone, regardless of social class, ethnicity, or religion is capable of contributing and should be treated the same.

So are you saying that illegals get to cut to the front of the line over others who are actually following the lawful process?

No, the notion is idiotic and ridiculous.

One is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization, or entering the country lawfully and subsequently losing his legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are seeking asylum as refugees, and may remain in the country until their refugee status is verified; if they’re not a legitimate refugee, they’re deported.

Clearly the problem is conservatives’ ignorance of the law; or conservatives who know the law but oppose the law the consequence of their bigotry and unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Would it make you feel better to call them Alleged illegal immigrants. Otherwise, anyone who enters the country in ways that violate the law are welcome based on your logic as long as they stay below the radar of ICE. That kind of thinking is part of the reason we have perhaps uncountable millions of “undocumented” immigrants in the country.

Bottom line: people can say that they are not for open boards all they want, but if they are not for reasonable ways to enforce the immigration laws that restrict the borders then they are de facto for open boarders.

Open boarders? Open boards???

 

[JoeMoma]

Should America have immigration laws and, if so, what should they be? And then, should they be enforced?

I hear many liberals claim that they don't support open borders but then object to anyone being deported. It seems to me that liberals don't have America to have an immigration policy nor a border.

I don't support open borders and don't object to select people being deported, just not everyone. Anyone who has a criminal record (beyond speeding tickets) gets the boot. If you're not in school or don't have a job you get the boot.

I think the US NEEDS immigrants and think those who risked everything to enter this country and have proved themselves to be law-abiding and productive should get a chance to stay. They are generally the kind of Americans we want. Everyone, regardless of social class, ethnicity, or religion is capable of contributing and should be treated the same.

So are you saying that illegals get to cut to the front of the line over others who are actually following the lawful process?

No, the notion is idiotic and ridiculous.

One is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization, or entering the country lawfully and subsequently losing his legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are seeking asylum as refugees, and may remain in the country until their refugee status is verified; if they’re not a legitimate refugee, they’re deported.

Clearly the problem is conservatives’ ignorance of the law; or conservatives who know the law but oppose the law the consequence of their bigotry and unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Would it make you feel better to call them Alleged illegal immigrants. Otherwise, anyone who enters the country in ways that violate the law are welcome based on your logic as long as they stay below the radar of ICE. That kind of thinking is part of the reason we have perhaps uncountable millions of “undocumented” immigrants in the country.

Bottom line: people can say that they are not for open boards all they want, but if they are not for reasonable ways to enforce the immigration laws that restrict the borders then they are de facto for open boarders.

Open boarders? Open boards???

Thinks for the correction. Sometimes I’m not very nimble typing out words on my iPad.

 

[Humorme]

I don't support open borders and don't object to select people being deported, just not everyone. Anyone who has a criminal record (beyond speeding tickets) gets the boot. If you're not in school or don't have a job you get the boot.

I think the US NEEDS immigrants and think those who risked everything to enter this country and have proved themselves to be law-abiding and productive should get a chance to stay. They are generally the kind of Americans we want. Everyone, regardless of social class, ethnicity, or religion is capable of contributing and should be treated the same.

So are you saying that illegals get to cut to the front of the line over others who are actually following the lawful process?

No, the notion is idiotic and ridiculous.

One is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization, or entering the country lawfully and subsequently losing his legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are seeking asylum as refugees, and may remain in the country until their refugee status is verified; if they’re not a legitimate refugee, they’re deported.

Clearly the problem is conservatives’ ignorance of the law; or conservatives who know the law but oppose the law the consequence of their bigotry and unwarranted fear of immigrants.

Would it make you feel better to call them Alleged illegal immigrants. Otherwise, anyone who enters the country in ways that violate the law are welcome based on your logic as long as they stay below the radar of ICE. That kind of thinking is part of the reason we have perhaps uncountable millions of “undocumented” immigrants in the country.

Bottom line: people can say that they are not for open boards all they want, but if they are not for reasonable ways to enforce the immigration laws that restrict the borders then they are de facto for open boarders.

Open boarders? Open boards???

Thinks for the correction. Sometimes I’m not very nimble typing out words on my iPad.

I think I'd junk that IPad. I swear at my cell phone every day and refuse to use it as a typewriter.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Should America have immigration laws and, if so, what should they be? And then, should they be enforced?

I hear many liberals claim that they don't support open borders but then object to anyone being deported. It seems to me that liberals don't have America to have an immigration policy nor a border.

There are reasons you don't get direct answers. Me, personally, I have a stalker that misrepresents my views so that I cannot express them on the boards. But, let's look at it realistically:

The overwhelming majority of people do not understand immigration. The federal government defines an immigrant as:

"An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)."

Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens | Internal Revenue Service

Okay, that is all well and good, but what we should strive for is to allow people to come here and work without becoming "lawful permanent residents." An employer should be able to hire whomever they want and we regulate the flow of workers by giving substantial tax incentives to employers who hire an all American workforce.

Meanwhile, if anything, we should have a two year moratorium on all persons wanting to enter the United States for the purposes of permanent residence.

The OP was talking about immigration law, not simply immigrants. All "immigrants" whether legal or illegal are called "aliens". Now, define alien. SMFH

There are already numerous visas that allow people to come here to work without ever becoming "lawful permanent residents." watafukndumbass

An employer can hire who ever they want provided they have legal authorization to work here, if they can't find the employee here they even have the ability to apply for a foreigner to come here via a work visa. :SHRUG:

The flow of workers is already regulated, there is only so many visas that are allowed per year.

Why not have a moratorium on all persons coming here on/with work visas?

Seems the one that doesn't understand immigration law is you. :SHRUG: