What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Ame®icano]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

/——/
There has to be limits to any immigration. The illegals are taking spots from the legals.

There is. The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. I don't think Trump is messing with that number. It is .2% of the population, way too small.

And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.

Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.

Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls. Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote. Your motive is clear

What a shocking revaluation. Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters. Donald Trump does it all. He calls them rapist and murders. Says migrants come from shit hole countries. Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."

/——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.

I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders. Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing. If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders.

So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have no responsibility for what's going on? They allow this to happen. They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.

What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border? You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?

Of course it would be our fault. We helped these people get to that border. We didn't stop them, we didn't try.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes... that is the decades-old shop-worn excuse for trying to delude White Folk into thinking that advocating for themselves is wrong. It's stopped working.

White people don't need to advocate for themselves, they already have all the advantages. ...

And continued advocacy by White Folk, FOR White Folk, will ensure that they CONTINUE to have all the advantages.

...Here's the thing. If I were to list all the fuckovers I've gotten in my life, every last one of them was at the hands of a fellow white male with more power, influence and money than I have. It's foolish to think his interests are my interests.

So naturally, you advocate for minorities to take power, so that you will get screwed-over less frequently.

In some Alternative Universe, perhaps, but not this one.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Point is, Gentlemen; that we have a Statue of Liberty.

If we have to give it back; the right wing gets the blame.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now. However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment. Trump did so as deterrent. He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back. If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year. If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months. What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together. There's no reason why we should not use them.

Correct. Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well the left feels this kind of thing has never happened before---only with Trump.

The changes taking place because of foreigners is obvious. It's time to stop migration until at least everybody can speak and read the language here.

The Know-Nothing party is gone. Let it go or join it in the dustbin.

They're gone? .....

Yes, they are gone. The Know-Nothing Party was defunct by 1860. Even then real Americans recognized that they were idiots and cowards not worth the attention. Every few decades a new crop of mentally defective weaklings like you start whining about the exact process by which their own ancestors came to America. Pretty stupid, really.

You know how my ancestors came here? Please tell me, because I don't even know that. However they came, I'm sure it wasn't illegally like what's going on today.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. One of the reason for birthright citizenship was to make clear who exactly were citizens. During most the early 19th century Americans encourage free and open immigration. People crossed from Canada and Mexico into the territories declaring themselves Americans. They moved to states became citizens of that state will little regard for any federal immigration laws. If you claimed to be a US citizen, you were accepted as a citizen because there was no way to prove otherwise.

However we have that ability today. Immigration was not an issue until the 19th century. It's not in the Constitution. There were no laws against immigration for many years. We did have open borders at one time.

But times have changed because we have more than enough people in this country. 320 million and counting. We are 20 trillion dollars in debt, losing our middle-class, and automation is taking jobs away faster than immigration or outsourcing. We don't need open borders today. If anything, we need closed borders.

 

[Ame®icano]

Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.

But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.

I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare. You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.

Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race. But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.

what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.

It is about economics.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.

Legal status can be fixed by Congress. Capitalism doesn't care.

Right, and one of the best ways to grow economy is to spend more on welfare.

"For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy."

 

[Ame®icano]

Ray doesn't need me to defend him. My issue is with your sweeping generalizations and distortions because it's the only way you can frame your arguments. "minority garbage" means minorities who are also garbage. Yes, I know the distinction is confusing for you.

But funny, Ray never says "White Garbage" does he.. Or "White Trash", which is a category he probably falls into.

I only responded to your claim that only white trash (garbage) are responsible for welfare. You leftist say something and when somebody responds in kind, they're the bad guy.

Don't bring up race if you don't want to make an issue out of race. But if you are going to bring up race, don't be critical when somebody mentions race as well.

what a coincidence, I feel the same way about the right wing.

It is about economics.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means Labor will be paying more in taxes and creating more in demand, regardless.

Legal status can be fixed by Congress. Capitalism doesn't care.

/----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.

Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.

Can you back that up? Probably not, because it's bogus claim. It may be under circumstances and for a short period of time, but on a long run no chance. Seattle is simple example of that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean because there are only white citizens in this country, race baiting dickhead. And you really are a douche. He's talking about the ability to function here in English. Not making them deny their heritage.

Except he didn't say "ability to speak English", he said "assimilate".

Hey, maybe we should eliminate St. Paddy's Day, Oktoberfest, Columbus Day and the Polish Parade here in Chicago because, hey, those people need to "assimilate", right?

If you can't speak or read English, guess what? You're not assimilating very well. If the country has to accommodate you for that reason, you are not assimilating very well. If you are a NYC cab driver, and refuse to pick up fares because they have a pet with them due to your religion, you are not assimilating very well.

Most legal immigrants to US are speaking English in a year, however like most people they are more comfortable speaking their native tongue. It is natural to assume two people speaking Spanish are doing so because they don't speak English but that is often not the case.

Assimilation means adapting and adjusting to a culture. It does not mean changing your culture. An immigrant who's Hispanic, Russian, Italian, etc will carry their culture with them through out their lives. They may become Americans but their ethnicity will not change. Their children born in America will carry with them their American culture.

I was born in an immigrant community now known as Slavic Village in Cleveland. Back then, we had many new arrivals.

In our neighborhood, they spoke Polish. Signs in stores were written in English and Polish. Some of our masses were in Polish. However outside our community, everybody spoke English.

There were no Polish speaking operators on the phone. There were no Polish signs outside of our neighborhood. People in the neighborhood helped the new settlers learn the language. Our Catholic school held free English classes to help them along. There were not translation videos, tapes or internet. They had to learn on their own.

They came here legally, separated themselves from family and friends overseas, and didn't send money back or travel to take advantage of the American dollars they earned. They came here to be Americans.

How does one adjust to a new culture if they refuse to give up their own?

 

[Ame®icano]

/----/ Against, raising minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available. Small businesses can't afford them.

Why is the unemployment rate lower where the minimum wage is higher, if not for capitalism and price seeking on the part of more motivated Labor.

/----/ If that was the quick fix or hiring motivated workers, businesses would pay more without Gubmint intervention. Do you understand anything about business? The ypay what they can afford. Labor is their biggest expense.

Capitalists get tax breaks for paying wages. Shareholders get a better return on their capital investment with higher profit.

Labor doesn't get tax breaks for actually providing Labor or tax breaks for lousy Capital management when a Firm fails.

They don't get any breaks for paying wages, moron.

not what i heard.

Heard where? Ladies were talking in haircut salon?

 

[Flopper]

I live near the borders. The ports are not blocked. Sessions is encouraging true ASYLUM SEEKERS to make their intentions known at a border crossing rather than run into the desert or cross a river...

The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.

Trump shouldn't let them do that. Asylum is what you seek to escape extreme danger from your government be it harm to you, your family or even death. Once they set foot in Mexico, that goal was already achieved. There is no need to come here.

How many "asylum seekers" fit that criteria?

No, the criteria for asylum is
having suffered persecution or fear that the petitioner will suffer persecution due to:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Membership in a particular social group
• Political opinion

The decision to grant asylum is based on the story the petitioner tell in the 12 page petition, the interview, and the court appearance and what facts can be confirmed. If they are granted asylum, they enter the refugee program while their background is checked.

Mexican law prevent them from offering permanent residence, however some will be offered refugee status which unlike the US is not permanent residence. I don't know if Mexico offers asylum.

 

[Ame®icano]

..... Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.

They do when they are in our jurisdiction.

Are you saying they can vote, bare arms, have free speech?

 

[francoHFW]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

Correct, because there are no able bodied minorities that aren't taking those jobs either.

So if the problem is welfare, your solution is immigrants. Typical leftist thinking all the way. Don't address the real problem, just create another problem to deal with the first one.

Let capitalism do the work. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Another communist's great idea that's so good, it have to be forced on employers.

The shortsighted GOP ones...

 

[Ame®icano]

Someone like me?
Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...

Have you/will you gone/go into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?

Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?

I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.

You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?

Cmon...beaner is a term of endearment right?

Sack up, find some manhood and call a Mexican a beaner to his face. Then get ready for a nice warm hug.....

Kinda, just as they call us "burgers". It's not a racist term.

BTW, when will you answer the freaking question?

Oh, you're leftist loser, and you don't do that.

The same time you answer the question..if “beaner” is such a term of endearment, have you belled up to a Chicano bar and called the tender a “beaner” to his face?

I asked you a question several times and you dodged every time. Then you asked me a question and demand I answer it immediately, and claimed I am dodging it.

I explained it to you, it's not how it works. Normal people live and learn. It seems you just live.

 

[francoHFW]

E- Verify

ICE arrests 114 at Ohio garden center in major mass raid

All criminals that use fake IDs, and fake SSN should be arrested, prosecuted, jailed, or deported. Anyone who employs them should pay large fines and if that doesn't work should be put out of business.

In Canada, employees are required to provide their SIN card to employers upon being hired. If Rev Canada audits the company and copies of all employee SIN cards aren’t in their files, the employer is fined $10,000 for each missing card.

Americans are keen to hire illegals for cheap labour. If there were no jobs waiting for them, there would be no point in sneaking in.

So the solution is what, get rid of the jobs?

Vote Republicans out... They keep the scam going, super duper... Pass the ID card

 

[Flopper]

There is. The body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members. I don't think Trump is messing with that number. It is .2% of the population, way too small.

And we have almost 2 million illegal aliens combining border crossers with VISA overstays, WAY too large.

Once we get that under control, we can increase legal immigration.

Every action you take is about getting more Democrat votes on the voter rolls. Not one action you're taking costs the Democrats a vote. Your motive is clear

What a shocking revaluation. Democrats don't have to say or do anything to attract Hispanic voters. Donald Trump does it all. He calls them rapist and murders. Says migrants come from shit hole countries. Blames our drug problems on Mexico. Wants to make Mexico pay the cost of defending our border with a wall. Wants to make it impossible for them to bring their families to the US. And he hovers over a taco salad proclaiming, "I love Hispanics."

/——/ One has nothing to do with the other. Maybe if you loved Americans you’d support a strong border.

I believe it's our responsibility to protect our borders. Asking Mexico a country whose GDP is 5% of ours to pay for defense our border is downright embarrassing. If the mightiest nation on earth can't defend it's borders against peasants, mostly women and children, maybe it doesn't deserve those borders.

So Mexico (who helped usher in this current group of people) have no responsibility for what's going on? They allow this to happen. They encourage it to happen, but it's our fault.

What do you think Canada would say if we sent Mexicans to their border? You know, allow them to ride a train all the way up north, then dump those people on them?

Of course it would be our fault. We helped these people get to that border. We didn't stop them, we didn't try.

The Mexican government turned back 400 people at the border because they were not allowed to enter Mexico.

The Mexican government allowed the remainder to enter Mexico legally. The government had no legal grounds to stop them from traveling to the US border to petition for asylum. The government did not transport, lodge or feed them. Private organizations helped them and in some towns, food and lodging was provided by the people.

It appears the only people that encouraged any criminal act were border guards that refused to let petitioners put foot on US soil to petition for asylum leaving them no choice but to unlawfully enter the country.

I hope you're not saying Mexico allowing asylum seekers to petition the US is why they should pay for a 20 billion wall to protect the Unities States. That's pretty far fetched.

Regardless of any action of Mexico, it is the responsibility of the US to protect it's border and certainly not Mexico's responsibility. Asking the Mexican goverment to protect the US border is completely insane.

It appears Trump is trying to work some deal with Mexico so they will stop asylum seekers who can enter Mexico legally at Guatemalan border. Hopefully, Mexico will give him the big FU.

 

[Ame®icano]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now. However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment. Trump did so as deterrent. He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back. If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year. If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months. What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together. There's no reason why we should not use them.

If Barry and Trump are doing the same thing, and what Barry did is irrelevant, how come what Trump is doing is relevant? Second, this is not about what Barry did and Trump doing, my point is that you leftists suddenly start caring about children, only after you were doing the same thing, on even larger care. That makes you hypocrites, all over again.

And, family detention centers that were built by Bush were unacceptable to you lefties, so you demanded changes in policies. Bush caved in, Barry continued the same thing, Trump too. Now you want family detention centers again, that you were against during Bush era.

 

[Flopper]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now. However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment. Trump did so as deterrent. He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back. If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year. If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months. What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together. There's no reason why we should not use them.

Correct. Don't create any kind of deterrent, and that will solve the problem.

We have a deterrent. It's called deportation. A few years ago we worked with the Mexican government to provide information to dissuade would be illegal immigrants from crossing the border. This booklets was available at consultant offices and post offices. It apparent was working. However, today the hatred Trump stirred up between the US and Mexico makes any cooperation unlikely.

 

[Dragonlady]

..... Foreigners do not have our constitutional rights.

They do when they are in our jurisdiction.

Are you saying they can vote, bare arms, have free speech?

Only citizens can vote but non-citizens have the right to Constitutional protections like due process.

They do have the right to bare arms or they can choose to wear a long sleeved shirt.

 

[koshergrl]

The real purpose of taking kids away from their parents is to persuade the parents to waive a trial and plead guilty. Once they plead guilty, their deportation can be expedited and they will be united with their children in few days or weeks. If they ask for their day in court, they won't see their children for months, or up to 1 year and they are told this.

What a load of crap.

If that is the "real reason" and if Barry hasn't done anything wrong by doing it (with your silent approval), than Trump is doing nothing wrong neither.

Kids don't belong to jail. Their parents are lawbreakers, not them.

What Obama did or did not do is irrelevant now. However, Obama separated families when it was necessary, and certainly not as a deterrent or as punishment. Trump did so as deterrent. He would still be doing so now were it not for the backlash in congress and the outcry from the public.

In our immigration system, if you detain parents and take away the kids, parents will waive their right to trial because it's the fastest way to get their kids back. If they ask for a trial they can be detained for up to a year. If they ask for asylum, they could be away from the kids for 4-6 months. What parent is going to take that kind of risk. In the countries these people come from, police take away kids and they are never seen again.

We created family detention center so families could be kept together. There's no reason why we should not use them.

Obama caused the humanitarian crisis at the border. Everybody knew this would be the result of telling criminals that they would be released if they had kids with them. That was an invitation to use kids to rush the border, and an invitation for human traffickers. That was his promise of protection for child sex traffickers.

Now we're dealing with it and you people are screaming because we're taking children away from traffickers. you are disgusting.